Do you agree this means that the souls in heaven do not sin? Don't they have free will, or does God remove our free will when we die? — Relativist
↪Dfpolis
According to Romans 6:7: " anyone who has died has been set free from sin"
Do you agree this means that the souls in heaven do not sin? Don't they have free will, or does God remove our free will when we die?
My point is that this suggests there can exist free willed beings who do not sin, despite your claims to the contrary. — Relativist
Then you have to agree there is a possible state of affairs in which there exist free-willed creatures who do not sin. Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just place us in that environment to begin with? — Relativist
." an unnecessary adherence to what you perceive as the “conventional” isn’t helpful in philosophy"
.
Sure, but unconventional positions must be explained and supported
., whereas conventional positions are generally understood.
.You are presumably criticizing my position
., which is perfectly fine, but if your counter depends on some unconventional views, you have the burden of explaining and supporting them
.- and you haven't really done this.
.It has seemed more of a guessing game
.…where you make some assertion and then I have to guess at what you mean
., then you reply that I got it wrong and hint at some more things for me to guess at.
.I haven’t even discerned whether or not you are a theist.
.you have questioned my term "ontological status, so I'll clarify: the ontological status of X entails: does X actually exist? Does it exist hypothetically? What properties does X have, and what relations does it have to other things that exist? Does it exist necessaily or contingently?
."I was referring to your Subjectivism objection."
What subjectivist objection? I didn't know I made one, so this might be a misunderstanding on your part.
For one thing, that doesn’t matter, because there are humans who discuss them.
.
There are abstract facts, in the sense that we can discuss them.
.
"Saying that the abstract facts depend on there being someone to discuss them is meaningless, because there are inevitably infinitely-many experience-stories with their complementary protagonists, some of whom discuss abstract facts."
.
.It is relevant if someone claims the actual world is a consequence of abstractions, which I thought you had implied. Did I misunderstand?
"if you say that you don’t know what ontology I believe in, that might be because I emphasize that I don’t claim or assert one."
Agreed.
I gather that you don't claim or assert a complete ontological system
."this life and this world are a blip in timelessness”
.
This implies that timelessness exists, that this world exists, and that the latter's existence is within the broader context of tbe former.
"What makes this life (or finite sequence of lives) a blip in timelessness is the temporariness of this life or finite sequence of lives."
.
This does not establish the existence of timelessness as a state of affairs, as something that actually exists as a context for the temporal world.
.
Yes, that’s why I said you quote next:
.
"“But doesn’t there have be timelessness for us in order for you to validly say that?”
.
.
Sure, and I’ve mentioned the timeless sleep at the end-of-lives (or at the end of this life if there’s no reincarnation). …which, by its finality in our experience, and its timeless nature, is the natural, normal, usual state-of-affairs."
.
Our short temporal lives exist within the context if the temporal existence of the universe. This therefore does not establish the existence of timelessness.
.
1. First, I shouldn’t have even brought up timelessness, because, at the end of lives, the delivery from life’s demands and menaces--and the rest and sleep, quiet and peace, at the end of lives is good enough, without my even mentioning timelessness.
.
I brought up the whole matter of the end-of-lives to show that things aren’t as bad as you think when you just look at the state of our societal world that we were born in. The fact that the peaceful, un-demanding, quiet and safe sleep at the end of lives is final, ending, and delivering us from, the things that you rightly object to, is sufficient, without bringing the matter of timelessness into it. So, I apologize for the distraction of bringing up timelessness.
.
2. …but the sleep at the end of lives is timeless. How long this universe lasts is entirely irrelevant. Sh*t, not only might the universe experience heat-death a long time from now, but, as observed by your survivors, your life will end soon after you enter your last unconsciousness. So how can I call the end of lives timeless?
.
Well, as I said, there’s no such thing as oblivion. In other words, for you, in your experience, there’s no time when you aren’t there. For you, that time never comes.
.
And, when the time comes when you’ve such a deep level of unconsciousness that you no longer have any memory or knowledge that there ever was, or even could be, such things as identity, time or events, then it can be said that you’ve reached timelessness. What, as seen by your survivors your life is about to visibly end? In deep unconsciousness and timelessness, you won’t know or care about that.
.
And, anyway, how do you expect it to end for you when, for you, there’s never a time when you aren’t there?
.
That’s how I justify speaking of timelessness in your life (at your end-of-lives). And that justifies speaking of your temporary life (or finite sequence of them) as a blip in timelessness.
.
(Where I’ve say “end-of-lives”, you can substitute “end of this life”, if you assume that there isn’t reincarnation).
.
But I re-emphasize that the point that I wanted to make--about your eventual quiet rest, peace, and delivery from all that you don’t like about this regrettable societal world that you were born in—is still perfectly valid without getting into the issue of timelessness.
.
Sorry to have brought in that distraction.
.
."timeless sleep at the end-of-lives (or at the end of this life if there’s no reincarnation). …which, by its finality in our experience, and its timeless nature, is the natural, normal, usual state-of-affairs."
.
Please explain what you mean by your claim that our experience has a " timeless nature". It appears to me that our experiences are entirely temporal. Death seems to me the temporal endpoint of our consciousness, so I see no reason to think this entails "timelessness."
."I’ve supported those statements by the uncontroversial statement that there’s no such thing as oblivion."
.
What is "oblivion"?
."Materialism, with its big brute-fact*, fails the Principle of Parsimony."
.I am agnostic regarding the existence of anything immaterial.
.That, of course, makes your assertion relevant to me: show that materialism fails the principle of parsimony - this could shift my view.
1. Logical contradictions do not exist.
2. If x exists then x is not a logical contradiction (converse of 1)
3. Omnipotence entails the ability to directly create any contingent entity whose existence is logically possible.
4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin (e.g. the departed souls of faithful Christians). (Christian doctrine).
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin
7. In this world, evil befalls the innocent due to the sinful acts of free-willed individuals
8. God created this world instead of a world of free willed beings that do not sin.
9. Therefore God chose a world with needless pain and suffering.
10. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent. — Relativist
Out of the 100,000,000 who died in the black death, it does seems unlikely that we're judging it wrong each of those times. This is just one natural calamity, which I brought up because it was such a big one — Relativist
My premise makes no assumption like this, but you can suggest this as the environmental condition that results in the absence of sin. But the question becomes: Why would an omnibenevolent God place the creatures that he loves in any OTHER environment? Why did he choose to make us suffer?On P4. Your proposition is assuming there is evil in heaven that the free willed beings in heaven would be free to chose if they desired, but don't because of their nature created by God. I do not think it is a valid assumption that there is evil in heaven. Or at least a case need to be made for it.
Why did he choose to make us suffer? — Relativist
Sure, ...and that's also why some people conclude a 3-omni God doesn't exist. If there is such a God then there are compensating gods, but IF there are no compensating goods, then such a God cannot exist. Contemplate the evil in the world without presumption of God's existence, and seeing no compensating goods, then the conclusion is obvious. (That's not to suggest this need be the end of the epistemic quest)and as above - the theist answer remains, compensating goods or morally justifiable reasons. Which is why this issue always inevitably spirals to this point and has for many many years
Sure, ...and that's also why some people conclude a 3-omni God doesn't exist. If there is such a God then there are compensating gods, but IF there are no compensating goods, then such a God cannot exist — Relativist
If a 3-omni God exists, then objective moral values exist
.…and we have the capacity to discern right and wrong - not infallibly, but our moral judgments should be expected to be generally trustworthy. This provides grounds to judge God's actions and inactions against the objective moral values we are confident are correct.
.What is the best explanation for all the evil the world has seen and has continues to see? Is the best explanation an omnibenevolent God who chose to create a world with the many evils this one has, despite there being no apparent reason why he couldn't have create a world without these problems?
.Or is the better explanation that there is no such God - and nature simply takes its course?
.The latter answers all questions about the evil in the world. The former answers none of them.
.Sure, it's possible there are answers that we are simply not capable of seeing, but why believe this to be the case?
.My argument to the best explanation considers both God's existence and his non-existence, and concludes that his non-existence is more likely given the evidence.
.Your position seems to assume God exists, and rationalizes the evil he allows based on the mere possibility that there's a billion-billion good reasons that we are simply incapable of discerning.
.If God exists, then that surely must be so.
.But start with a balanced view..
., as I did, and that rationalization doesn't make for a good explanation.
Then you have to agree there is a possible state of affairs in which there exist free-willed creatures who do not sin. Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just place us in that environment to begin with? — Relativist
Christians choose to love God while their on earth, and yet they continue to sin.The answer is that the only reason that those in heaven do not sin is because they have chosen to love God.
Our knowledge about everything is limited, and yet we end up believing things anyway. We typically come to a belief based on the information at hand, and that's why the mere possibility of inscrutable reasons doesn't defeat a belief in God's non-existence that is formed based on the information we actually have.An Omni-benevolent God as judged with our limited knowledge? Yes or no?
Christians choose to love God while their on earth, and yet they continue to sin. — Relativist
Existence is a concept referring to the quality of "existing." To exist is to be in the world (world in the generic sense, not necessarily limited the physical world). The world contains beings (=existents, the things that exist). The set of all beings = the totality of reality.“Existence” is metaphysically-undefined. In any case, no one denies that this physical world is real in its own context, and that your life, and this physical world which is its setting, are real in the context of your life.
"Sleep" seems a poor characterization. Death is the cessation of being, if there is no "afterlife." If there is an afterlife, there is no "sleep" - there's just a transition of states of being. In neither case does the term "timelessness" seem applicable. "Timelessness" suggests to me something that does not experience time. "Sleep suggests subtle change in state of living consciousness, not a cessation of consciousness nor a transition of states of being.The finality of that sleep at the end of lives, and the absence of any knowledge, memory or perception that there is, was, or could be, such things as identity, time or events, suggests the use of the word “timelessness”.
I'll clarify. Math and logic use the symbol, "∃" , which is read, "there exists". This is not an ontological claim, it is used to analyze mathematical and logical relations. I label this a "hypothetical existence." It may, or may not, refer to something that is in the world. But (hypothetically) if it exists, we can deduce various things about it.So all you’re doing is defining your “objective existence” as more than hypothetical existence....
...for Materialists, of course.[/quote]Relativist:" That there exists an external, physical world is a properly basic belief, an epistemological foundation for all else." — Michael
I strongly disagree. Our innate, nonverbal view of the world is our epistemic foundation.Your experience is the epistemic foundation for all else.
You are imaging things. I did no such thing.You’ve admitted that you don’t have an answer regarding in what noncircular way you think that this physical world is more than that.
Relativist: "We are not taught that there is an external world "
.
There’s undeniably an external world in our experience. That’s what our experience story is about.
Not me. I was raised Catholic. I eventually came to question what I was taught, just as you did.We’re taught, from an early age, to be little Materialists and Science-Worshippers. Some of us never question that.
Who said it did?As animals, we instinctively deal with our surrounding physical world as best we can. Kids, and most people, and (for all we know) all other animals leave it at that, and don’t ask what there really is, or why they’re in a life, or why there’s something instead of nothing.
.
…but that doesn’t support Materialism.
We have that in common.if you say that you don’t know what ontology I believe in, that might be because I emphasize that I don’t claim or assert one.
You've made two errors: 1) you assume I'm a materialist; 2) you don't understand the principle of parsimony."I apply the principle of parsimony."
.
It doesn’t support you. Materialism, with its big brute-fact*, fails the Principle of Parsimony.
I agree that we can't confirm our properly basic beliefs. That does not preclude having rationally justified beliefs. My theory is that we have these properly basic beliefs because we are a product, and component, of this world (and this is true irrespective of whether there is a supernatural creator). This could be wrong, of course, but neither you nor anyone else has given me a reason to doubt it.But no, there’s absolutely no evidence, no physics-experiment, to support a claim that this physical world is other than the hypothetical setting in your hypothetical experience-story, a complex abstract logical system.
You repeated this multiple times. You seem to be saying, "nothing you've said has convinced me that my assessment is false." That's great, but I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, I was just sharing what I believe. I hope you realize that such statements don't give me any reason to think I have it wrong either.None of that supports a claim that this physical world is other than what I said it is.
You are casting my assertions in terms of subjectivism, that is certainly not my claim. Of course, you can believe whatever you like. I hope you aren't trying to convince me of anything, because if you are- you're failing miserably.I addressed your Subjectivism argument in my previous post.
That is not "an ontology" it is an ontological claim. OK, I hear you and I disagree with you.To propose an ontology, I’d propose that the physical world is nothing other than part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts, and that the describable world consists of nothing other than that.
As I said above, I don't believe in an ontology. I do believe certain things exist (e.g. the physical world), and other things possibly exist (such as gods), and I'm just not sure about the nature of the mind (is it really something immaterial?)You’re the one with an ontology that you aren’t specifying or being clear with us about.
I prefer to use the term "fact" to refer to an element of reality as distinct from propositional descriptions of a elements of reality. Abstractions can be the subject of propositions and discussed as such - if this is what you mean, I completely agree.At least as discussion-topics, there uncontroversially are abstract facts
I think you may misunderstand the principle of parsimony. It seems to me that whatever is the foundation of reality, it entails a very complex brute fact. An omniscient, immutable God who created material reality is an extremely complex brute fact. But the principle of parsimony is actually an epistemological principle that we should refrain from making any more assumptions than necessary to explain the facts at hand. It does NOT mean that reality is simple.“Physicalism” (a regrettable two-meaning word for Materialism (or for a philosophy-of-mind position)) is blatantly unparismonious, with its big, blatant brute fact.
You had several similar reactions wherein I tell you something I believe, and then you react in this way (what, inferring that I think you DON'T believe this?). I'm not suggesting what you do, or don't believe, I'm just telling you what I believe.Relativist:" it seems irrational to believe something just because it is POSSIBLY true"
.
And what do you think that I believe in.
That's an interesting and bizarre perspective, since you've given no reason to believe "the physical world is nothing other than part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts." And of course, I disagree - there are very good reasons to believe the physical world is something other than this. I expect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.I emphasize that, in this discussion, I’m not advocating an ontology or metaphysics. I’m merely pointing out that there’s no reason to believe in an ontology that says that this physical world is other than what I’ve said [the physical world is nothing other than part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts])"
This one: "the physical world is nothing other than part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts"Relativist:" …, or do you think you can show that your view is more worthy of belief than mine? "
.
What belief of mine are you referring to? If I made a controversial claim, what was it?
Of course I am, but I believe we are also able to contemplate objective reality, that we actually can escape subjectivism. I believe you have things backwards when you claim the physical world is a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts - these abstract "facts" (actually: propositions) are descriptive of what actually IS. Logic is not an existent, it is a rational process, so to claim the physical world is a "logical system" is a category error. Again, we needn't agree - and I doubt we ever will.So you aren’t central to your experience?
I've given you one: we believe it innately, and it is reasonable to think that this is because we are a product of that substantial world. Now you can't make that claim; you have to find a reason to reject what I've said.“I suggest that this life and the physical world in which it is set, are completely insubstantial”
.
Relativist: Why do you believe such a thing?
.
I merely claim that there’s no reason to believe otherwise.
We both are. But at least mine is grounded in our innate view of the world. I don't have any idea how you came up with your bizarre view.let’s be clear which of us is advocating an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition.
If the physical world exists, and it is nothing more than "part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts," then you must believe abstract facts exist. If abstract facts do not exist, then the physical world doesn't exist.No need to quibble about how or if the abstract facts exist. I haven’t claimed that they exist other than as subjects of discussion or mention.
100 years after the big bang, there was no one around to have an "experience story". At that point in time, did abstract facts exist?Saying that the abstract facts depend on there being someone to discuss them is meaningless, because there are inevitably infinitely-many experience-stories with their complementary protagonists, some of whom discuss abstract facts.
This is an assumption: "the physical world is nothing other than part of a logical system of inter-referring abstract facts."what I’ve been saying doesn’t include any assumptions, brute-facts, beliefs or controversial statements.
.You’re assuming that God is responsible for this world and your birth in it.
.
Hardly.
.In general, just as it’s best to explain by physical-science what can be explained by physical-science, before invoking higher for an explanation—likewise it’s best to explain within describable metaphysics what can be explained within describable metaphysics before invoking higher.
.
How does one invoke a metaphysics "higher" than that which is describable
..
, which evidently implies that an indescribable metaphysics?
.This doesn't seem to make any sense.
.Consider the argument I stated in my Op: one premise depends on the Christian assumption that the souls in heaven have free will and do not sin.
Sure, and you genuinely believe that your view is balanced and free of presumptions.It’s popular to start with the premise that one’s view is balanced, while those of others aren’t.
Consider these potential starting points: 1) The premise: God Exists; 2) the premise:God does not exist;
Neither of these seem "balanced," in that they both entail a presumption.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.