Assuming 4. again, continuing this thread. Then we can perhaps agree that God is not omnibenevolent. So how to rebel against an abusive parent? Give them the middle finger and strike out on your own perhaps?

Following this line of thought though, what do you think would be great ways to strike out against an abusive, omnipotent being? If we are even capable of it. Given that the being in question would already know everything we could do, then nothing we could do, could piss Him off (?). Or perhaps we could, and He knows it. An omnipotent being knowing His "child" is going to piss Him off in future is an amusing thought.

It seems more likely that He, doesn't give a F*&%, and neither should we. If we have been created to suffer, and there is no overarching meaning to this life, then it's up to us to create our own meaning and purpose to our lives, thereby reducing our own suffering as much as we can through our own actions. Obviously, within the constraints of what's possible given our circumstances (each being unique to our own place in history and the society we grow into).

Or perhaps the ultimate act of rebellion is to shoot ourselves in the head as the ultimate "up yours, I'm not playing your game". Though personally, I'd rather live, and fight against the suffering. Perhaps finding that joy, or beauty, in the dissonance of life is its own reward (and the ultimate rebellion against a sadistic Creator). To think that even after all the suffering he does brings us, or in spite of it, we can still find joy and meaning in our lives, created by us, and therefore given to us, by us, through our own actions. The ultimate "up yours" indeed.

Then we can perhaps agree that God is not omnibenevolent. — CountVictorClimacusIII

We can't do that, for God is by definition omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. That is, it is just what the word denotes: a person who has those properties is 'God' just as a man who has never had a wife is a bachelor. 4, in other words, just asserts that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

Furthermore, if a person is omnipotent, then she will also be omnibenevolent, or at least it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they will be (for the person will be Reason and she will approve of herself and 'being approved of by Reason' is what being omnibenevolent consists of). The same is true where omniscience is concerned (for if one does not know everything, then one will lack some powers; knowledge is power, as they say). They come as a package, then.

Finally, we are trying to find out what the purpose of our lives here may be, yes? So we should not start out by assuming that we know already and then adjusting the premises of an argument until it yields what we want. Anyone who does that is engaged in a pointless exercise, for they are trying to find the answer to a question that they already insist they know the answer to.

What I have done is demonstrate what the purpose of our lives here is if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being exists. It's not a test or an attempt to seduce us. It's a punishment.

Perhaps no such person exists. But they do - premise 4 is true - and this can be rationally demonstrated. And certainly no reasonable person can reject premise 4 on the grounds that they do not like the conclusion that 4 yields. For not liking a conclusion is not evidence the conclusion is false.

Anyway, imagine you wake one morning with no memories of the day before. But you are lying on a bed and you are covered in bandages and there are tubes and wires coming out of you and monitors around you making beeping noises. You find as well that you are barely able to move and that there are others in beds around you in a similar situation. You ask others how you got to be in this situation, but all they can tell you is that you came through the double doors at the end of the room, which doesn't really answer your question.

What is it reasonable for you to believe? Surely that you are a patient in a hospital and something has gone seriously wrong with your health. It would be odd - indeed, rationally perverse - to conclude that someone is head over heals in love with you and to express this covered you with bandages and hooked you up to various machines and restricted your movement and put you in a ward without them, but with a lot of other people with whom they are also madly in love. I mean, there's just no reasonable route to that conclusion - it's potty. And it becomes even more potty if one supposes in addition that your lover is omnipotent and omniscient!


Obviously we're not in that situation, but our situation is relevantly similar. We have awoken in ignorance in a dangerous world. If we ask others why we are here, the most they can tell us from their experience is that we fell out of that woman over there some time ago. But that's not really what we want to know.

What's the reasonable conclusion for us to draw about our situation if we know that God exists? That God loves us and he's somehow trying to express it by making us living in ignorance in a dangerous world? That seems potty. No, we're in a prison. We may not know precisely why, but we are and we're not loved, we're hated, and nothing that happens to us is undeserved. Not a particularly pleasant conclusion - though one that will, if taken seriously, make one much more psychologically robust - but there it is.

If we have been created to suffer, and there is no overarching meaning to this life, then it's up to us to create our own meaning and purpose to our lives, thereby reducing our own suffering as much as we can through our own actions. Obviously, within the constraints of what's possible given our circumstances (each being unique to our own place in history and the society we grow into). — CountVictorClimacusIII

We have not been 'created' to suffer - why would an omnibenevolent being do such a thing? They wouldn't. The idea makes no sense. So we are not God's creations. God exists. We exist. No contradiction there. But if you suppose God created us, then that's perverse and makes no sense. There is a long tradition of thinking God created us, but there's no evidence he did and plenty that he didn't, not least the fact we're not perfect and the fact we have free will and the fact we're being punished (what kind of bastard would create us for the purpose of punishing us??).

There 'is' a purpose to this life: the purpose our living it serves is it gives us our comeuppence. That's a purpose. It's serving it.

You can't create your own purpose for your life. You didn't bring yourself into existence here or make this place. So how on earth can you give your life here a purpose? You are confusing your own purposes with the purpose for which you are living here. Your purposes are too late to the purpose party. In order for your purposes here to be the purpose for which you are being subjected to a life here, your purposes - the ones you formed here - would have had to have been causally responsible for you living here, which as a moment's reflection should tell you is manifestly impossible, for what is later does not cause that which is earlier.

A knife has been made for the purpose of cutting things, and it that's not going to change if the knife has other ideas.

And as for 'rebelling' - well, rebel or don't rebel, it'll make no difference to why you're here. And you can try to escape, but what would be the point of that? This is God's prison; you can't escape.

@Bartricks

So, let's see if I can align myself here to what you're thinking. Basically, following this idea, our lives are a punishment for a "crime" committed by us, even if we do not understand what that crime is / was, and the act of living is solely to serve out our time here, on this "prison" created by a God to punish us for this crime. This is the purpose of our life. To serve our time.

So unlike say, the idea that our existence precedes essence, we instead have been designed for a purpose, that purpose being to serve our time in this prison. Therefore we are like the knife, made for cutting things.

Also, God may not have actually created us. Yet, punishes us anyway? We must have really pissed the old man off...

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? Of course this would be subjective. A matter of perspective. But within the confines of "serving" our time out, we could at least perhaps, try to make the act of serving that time slightly more pleasant for us. Sure, rebellion might be pointless since there is no escape, but not if we subjectively find meaning in the act of that rebellion - rebellion here being to find beauty in the dissonance of life, to reduce our suffering and maximize our joy.

Just like a prisoner may, say, workout in his cell everyday to keep his body sharp, or read a book or two if available to keep his mind sharp, whilst still existing within the confines of his own prison (the cell), could we not also make our cell more comfortable?

Subjective, personal experience perhaps — CountVictorClimacusIII

You can't have a subjective, personal experience that deists generally feel something more than atheists.

@Kenosha Kid

I see what you mean. Poor choice of words in my previous reply to you. Then, I should try to clarify, whether you're a deist, atheist, etc. at the stage of older child to adult, we may feel this feeling regardless (abandoned / alone / lost / despairing) (?), and perhaps we each attribute that feeling to something different, based on subjective / personal experiences and individual beliefs.

Of course, this is pure conjecture on my part.

Basically, following this idea, our lives are a punishment for a "crime" committed by us, even if we do not understand what that crime is / was, and the act of living is solely to serve out our time here, on this "prison" created by a God to punish us for this crime. This is the purpose of our life. To serve our time. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Yes. There would be three purposes, not one. First, to protect others from us (met any morally perfect people? Exactly. They're not here. This is the land of the depraved). Second, retribution: to give us what we deserve. We would all no doubt have subjected an innocent person to the very risks of harm that we are now running - and so we deserve to face them ourselves (and if you've had kids - well done, you just done gone earned yourself another stretch!). We are being fed our own medicine. And third, rehabilitation - to learn the error of our ways and change them. That's the least important as God, being nice, give us this opportunity, but doesn't really give a rat's arse whether we do or not, as we're loathsome to her.

we instead have been designed for a purpose, that purpose being to serve our time in this prison. Therefore we are like the knife, made for cutting things. — CountVictorClimacusIII

No, I never said that. Indeed, I said the opposite: the idea that a good omnipotent person would create us for the purpose of punishing us is absurd. We - we - have not been designed.

But what do you do with arseholes that you haven't created and that threaten good people? Destroy them? Perhaps, but you're good and would rather not. So you put them somewhere else. You put them, to quote Empodocles, 'away from the abodes of the blessed'. You put them here. You make them wear mortal clothes.

The world - this world - and our career in it is the knife. Not us.

Also, God may not have actually created us. Yet, punishes us anyway? We must have really pissed the old man off... — CountVictorClimacusIII

Not 'may'. 'Did not' create us. I was clear. I said God did not create us. I said there is a tradition of thinking he has, but no evidence and plenty that he hasn't. I couldn't have been clearer. Only an arsehole would create us to punish us. God is not an arsehole. Therefore he has not created us. The logic is impeccable, the conclusion unpleasant. And yes, we have really pissed him off.

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? — CountVictorClimacusIII

Yes. One way is to realize you deserve all you get. Easier to do your time - easier to take your licks - if you recognise that you deserve it all. However, only those who undertake to listen to Reason - that is, to God - will be afforded this luxury. The rest will languish here feeling sorry for themselves and wondering why bad things are happening to thjem and why the world is soooo unfair and helping themselves to every self-aggranising view on the market. Ooo, I am made to suffer so I can come closer to God; GOd loves me soooo much he's made me suffer. What a shower of idiots! Hell, I want them to suffer too - don't you? The fools.

And note that unlike Douglas Adams's thought experiment, this theory is demonstrably true, not just a comedian's flight of fancy. If you think it isn't true, dispute a premise.

Define morally perfect, or objective morals. What standard are you measuring man to exactly? What makes us depraved? Are we all depraved? How? Why?

Your rehabilitation idea is interesting though. Are we to assume here, that the goal is to elevate ourselves from our depravity?

Also interesting, this idea of placing us here instead of destroying us.

I said may because I do not necessarily agree with your position, but I'am thoroughly enjoying the conversation and want to explore this further. Out of curiosity, this evidence you mention, could you provide a source? Interested to explore the idea.

I'm all for individual agency, and taking active and purposeful control of your own life with passion, love, and courage. Ultimately, to find your own meaning and to grow, I suppose, out of despair, or perhaps, out of the depravity you may be referring to, towards something greater / higher. However, for those that do not see it this way, and for those that suffer, I do not necessarily want them to suffer, or remain that way. I'd like to help those I can, or those that want to be helped. To do some good. In this short blip of time that I have here in this prison or purgatory perhaps.

How is it demonstrably true? I have some idea of where you might be headed, but would rather have you clarify and expand on this idea so I can comment back on it with clarity.

Then, I should try to clarify, whether you're a deist, atheist, etc. at the stage of older child to adult, we may feel this feeling regardless (abandoned / alone / lost / despairing) (?), and perhaps we each attribute that feeling to something different, based on subjective / personal experiences and individual beliefs. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Fair enough, but then this can't be used to demonstrate the explanatory power of your theory. One can accept your theory (perhaps a la Sebastian Flyte on the grounds that it's lovely, which it is) and then posit this as an explanation for feelings of abandonment in a separate theory, but to assume that those feelings are a good demonstration of your theory is circular, relying as it does on a degree of interpretation proceeding from the assumption that the theory is true.

I think our feelings of abandonment have a lot more to do with the society we mature in. I don't think these are spiritual, rather are interpreted as spiritual when seen through a religious lens which, for most of the last couple of millennia, things have.

I was thinking back to the "spiritual" pull that I, an atheist from birth, felt when hearing a choir and organ in Durham cathedral. It was the first time I thought I might get what Christians interpreted as spiritual. It was rather melancholic but also comforting, beautiful and sad. It made me want to bear all to an invisible father figure who would definitely definitely not judge and keep my secrets.

I told a religious friend of mine who likewise saw this as demonstrating the explanatory power of religion. But of course Christianity has had millennia to refine its articles and accompaniments to better achieve a feeling that they claimed for religion, while teaching people throughout that time to associate that feeling with the spiritual.

Are we all depraved? — CountVictorClimacusIII

According to Calvin we are.

Well, to be fair, this was more stream of consciousness flow from the idea posited in God Debris as per my OP. I don't think my thoughts here are fleshed out enough to be any theory, but have contributed to worthwhile discussion, which I've enjoyed.

I do agree that society plays an important role, as perhaps these ideas represent a more modern / contemporary Western view, one that has become more secular given the fall of Christianity as the prevailing worldview, or, following the "death of God" as Nietszche has famously stated (and predicted).

I too am not a religious person, raised Catholic but abandoning that worldview in my late teens, I've flirted between atheism / agnosticism, and toyed with the idea of pandeism. Although I'd say I'm primarily existentialist in my views and have been for quite some time.

I think the matter of there being a God or God-like diety is irrelevant to the day to day functioning of life, however engaging the idea of it is always interesting to me. Pondering the possibilites of God, or no God, and the implications of each possibility in its effects on humankind.

Personally, I think that the idea of God holding a primary worldview in a modern, Western, and primarily secular society no longer has the rapturous pull required to keep us all in awe. We need something new. Something to snap us out of our indiffernce, and perhaps, to snap us out of the elements of nihilism we've found ourselves in. At least in my opinion of us, the contemporary Western, modern individual. Jaded and apathetic, but not without hope.

Well, to be fair, this was more stream of consciousness flow from the idea posited in God Debris as per my OP. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Ah okay. We'll, like I said, the idea is attractive, by which I meant as mythos. I think there's more to ordering narratives than historical data points, and I find Christianity the most fascinating (no doubt because it's the dominant religion in my upbringing), so I'm not down on creationist myth in and if itself. I like that yours incorporates the sacrifice motif of Christianity with the scientific motif of completist, self-justifying curiosity.

I've flirted between atheism / agnosticism, and toyed with the idea of pandeism — CountVictorClimacusIII

Which your OP qualifies as, and which counts Einstein among its adherents. Good company.

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

It's a great story, and very well presented. It reminds me of something I read. I think it was in Alan Watts - God was all alone in the world. Lonely. She wanted someone to play with, so she split herself into many pieces, us, and then made herself forget.

Even if I'm wrong on that, I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. — James Riley

I have thought that one of the reasons we need God is so we have someone to be grateful to.

the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer

This is the story I was referring to in my previous post. Your explanations are always better than mine.

Now, let's assume that indeed this world and our lives are a prison cell. We can't escape it. Surely, we can attempt to alleviate our time spent in the cell then? Of course this would be subjective. A matter of perspective. But within the confines of "serving" our time out, we could at least perhaps, try to make the act of serving that time slightly more pleasant for us. Sure, rebellion might be pointless since there is no escape, but not if we subjectively find meaning in the act of that rebellion - rebellion here being to find beauty in the dissonance of life, to reduce our suffering and maximize our joy. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you referred to this previously - what about those of us who find the world wonderful and who enjoy the company of our fellow humans. Who aren't in despair. Who recognize suffering for what it is. Who may even believe as Buddhists do that we are responsible for our own suffering. Our goal, to the extent we have one, is not to find meaning, but to make ourselves work the way God or Darwin built us to do. Tune up the machinery. Replace the framajamit. Polish up the chrome.

But, if God had that one nagging question, “what happens if I cease to exist?” - He might then be motivated to find the answer through his own self-destruction. — CountVictorClimacusIII

The joke is, of course, he could never find the answer to this question. What does not exist does not know anything.

This is not God's thought experiment. If it were there would have been no need to do anything but think about it. But thinking about it could not yield the desired result.

The bits that were God exist because God does not. If through their self-assembling combination God will again exist then what happens when he ceases to exist is that he will again exist.

But that cannot be known unless the bits actually assemble themselves to become God. How can it be known that they will? The experiment is self-destructive and from the perspective of us bits, very possibly a failure.

If God's bits are capable of becoming God then this is something he would already know if he knew himself.

I have thought that one of the reasons we need God is so we have someone to be grateful to. — T Clark

Or, just as well, some(one) to blame, a Feuerbachian scapegoat ...

So [ ... ] the word "grace"? I use it to express 'calm attentive poise' (as in, for example, grace under pressure or graceful dancer) ... Very similiar to how I use terms like grateful & gratitute as a stance but not an address to some invisible sky daddy. — 180 Proof

A life, or living, is gratuitous. Whatever anyone does is either a gift or curse (or both). Likewise, oblivion is gratuitous. Are you grateful for these gratuities or not? — 180 Proof

Otherwise, our in-gratitude signifies taking 'the living – boredom and spite, joys and sorrows, loves and strangers – and the dying' for granted (i.e. neglecting, or denying, that we are called-into-question by these (our) givens).

what about those of us who find the world wonderful and who enjoy the company of our fellow humans. Who aren't in despair. Who recognize suffering for what it is. Who may even believe as Buddhists do that we are responsible for our own suffering.

If I can answer this from a Kierkegaardian perspective, then I'd say that those that aren't in despair are either living as a balanced self relation (to finitude / infinitude) and live in harmony, or, are in despair and don't know it. I suppose this is where authenticity may come into play. Do you truly believe the world to be wonderful, do you truly enjoy the company of your fellow man, have you shouldered the burden of your responsibility with commitment, passion and love? Do these convictions truly represent you, your beliefs, your ideals, your desires, your motives? If yes, then perhaps you're on the path of inner peace and true harmony with yourself, others and the world around you.

Unfortunately, not all of us have reached that point as yet, and perhaps some may never reach it.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. With all our effort.

The experiment is self-destructive and from the perspective of us bits, very possibly a failure. If God's bits are capable of becoming God then this is something he would already know if he knew himself.

An interesting thought. The experiment is self-destructive, and perhaps the failure is us. And if God does not know Himself, then perhaps He is not God, not in the way we picture Him at least (from a Christian perspective). Thus our imperfections mirror His, if he in fact, is not omnipotent, but instead, just a powerful enough being to create life, with that life being as flawed as Himself.

I do think the "feeling alone" or "abandoned" is more a misperception, or an "illness" or a failure to appreciate, a lack of gratitude, amazement, wonder and love. I know there are some people who seem to be good with our condition. Some children (not all) and some of those touchy-feely yogi types (unless they are bullshitting us).

I agree here. The feeling, at least from a Kierkegaardian perspective would represent a person that is in despair through the unbalance of his / her self. The self being a verb, that is, the active and ever-changing self relation to finitude and infinitude. This unbalance, occurring when someone attempts to search for meaning in the outside world by relating the self to the infinite through finite things.

Thus our imperfections mirror His, if he in fact, is not omnipotent, but instead, just a powerful enough being to create life, with that life being as flawed as Himself. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Or perhaps what is annihilated is the concept of God. This can be taken in two ways: 1) God is not limited by our concept, or 2) God is only a concept. If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Define morally perfect, or objective morals. What standard are you measuring man to exactly? What makes us depraved? Are we all depraved? How? Why? — CountVictorClimacusIII

We are supposing God to exist. God is omnipotent - so he can do anything and is not subject to any constraints. By itself we can conclude from this that moral standards are set by God - that is, for an act to be right is for it to be an act God wills us to perform, and for something to be morally good is for it to be approved of by God. For unless this were so, there would be a standard external to God that God did not have power over. Technically, then, these are not 'objective' standards, for they are constitutively determined by the attitudes of a subject - God. They are subjective standards, but they are external to ourselves.

I have demonstrated in the only way that anything can be demonstrated - that is, by ratiocination - that we are depraved. Here:

1. If God exists, she would not permit innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists
3. Therefore, God does not permit innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world
5. Therefore, we are not innocent (that is, we are depraved).

And yes, that applies to all of us, for it is rebarbative to Reason to suppose that an omnipotent omnibenevolent being would suffer any innocent experiencing subject to languish here.

To be clear: that argument is deductively valid. So if its premises are true, then its conclusion is established whether anyone likes it or not.

You ask 'how?' Well, by having freely done wrong. You ask 'why?' I do not know what you are asking. Are you inquiring into our past motives for having done wrong? Well, I do not know. To return to my hospital bed analogy: you may well wonder what accident or medical crisis led to you being in the hospital. But your inability to know - and the inability of other patients to be able to tell you - does not give you grounds for thinking that you are not, in fact, in a hospital and did not suffer an accident or medical crisis. Likewise, that you can't remember what immoral deed you did that landed you here, does not give you grounds for thinking that such a deed is not what landed you here, or that this is not a prison.

Your rehabilitation idea is interesting though. Are we to assume here, that the goal is to elevate ourselves from our depravity? — CountVictorClimacusIII

No, that's not the main goal at all, that's simply an opportunity we have been given. An omnipotent being has no problem realizing her goals - she could eradicate our depravity in the blink of an eye if she wanted. (Plus it is not always clear what the right thing to do is, yet it would be crystal clear if rehabilitation was a primary goal). Again, we are not living here for our benefit - the idea that we are is heretical for it supposes that God was incapable of giving us such benefits absent the harms, or that God is an arsehole and only likes giving people benefits if she can harm you as well into the bargain. Either thought reveals a corrupt nature on the part of the thinker. The goal - which she could realize in any way she wanted, but has chosen this way - is to protect others from us and to give us our just deserts. Those who look to the world with all it contains and see in it an expression of love are revealing the extent of their self-love and stupidity. They think they're so loveable that someone's built a world for them to live in. A world that contains every horror you can conceive of and the constant risk that at any time one of those horrors will be visited upon you. This might give them some pause, but their stupidity and self-love comes to the rescue and they are soothed by the idiot thought that somehow these horrors are designed to enhance the love between then and the other. And so they skip around with a rictus grin on their face, mouthing self-serving inanities to each other and breeding, when all they're actually doing is making the God hate them ever more and increasing their sentence. It's funny really.

Ultimately, to find your own meaning and to grow — CountVictorClimacusIII

Again, that's pointless and arrogant. The meaning - the purpose - of your life is not in your gift. Any purpose you want your life here to serve is impotent to make that the purpose of your life, for it is too late on the scene. THe purpose of your life here was determined by another, not by you. For you did not create this place and did not put yourself here. So how on earth can you then claim to be able to be the source of its purpose? I may choose to decorate my cell, but that does not mean that the purpose of my being in the cell is to decorate it. It's just something I'm doing, but it is not the purpose of the cell or the purpose of my being in it.

The meaning of your life is discovered, not made. It is discovered if one chooses to follow Reason. If you listen to Reason you will discover that Reason is a person, and that she's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. And if you listen some more, you'll discover that you're not innocent. And thus that you are in a prison. And thus that the purpose of your life - regardless of what purpose you adopt while living it - is protection and retribution, with rehabilitation not as a primary purpose, but an opportunity that you can take up or not as you choose. To think the purpose of your life is something else is not thereby to have made it something else. Reality is not like that: it's not a plaything of our will.

How is it demonstrably true? I have some idea of where you might be headed, but would rather have you clarify and expand on this idea so I can comment back on it with clarity. — CountVictorClimacusIII

There are imperatives of reason. A demonstration is itself an appeal to one. For instance, it is an imperative of reason that arguments of this form

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q

entail their conclusions. And moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason. And imperatives of prudence are imperatives of Reason. So, logic, prudence and morality are all made of imperatives of Reason. They cannot reasonably be doubted (their content, yes, but not their existence). So, this premise cannot reasonably be doubted:

1. There are imperatives of Reason

Imperatives are commands - it's just another word for a command. And only a mind can issue commands. Thus this premise is self-evidently true:

2. Only a mind can issue an imperative

From which it follows that

3. The imperatives of Reason are imperatives an existent mind is issuing

The mind in question would not be bound by its own imperatives and thus would be omnipotent. And they would know everything, for Reason is the arbiter of knowledge. And they would be omnibenevolent because they would approve of themselves (they are omnipotent, so if they disapproved of any aspect of themselves, they could just change it). And when Reason fully approves of something, that's what it is for that thing to be maximally good. Thus:

4. THe mind of Reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

From which it follows:

5. The imperatives of Reason are imperatives an existent omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind is issuing.

That mind is, by definition, God. For God is just shorthand for 'an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind'.

And from here we pick up the argument I made earlier:

6. If God exists, she would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
7. Therefore (from 5) she has not suffered innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
8. We are living in ignorance in a dangerous world
9 THerefore we are not innocent

There. Proof that we are in a prison doing time.

moral standards are set by God - that is, for an act to be right is for it to be an act God wills us to perform, and for something to be morally good is for it to be approved of by God.

What are these moral standards? Are we talking the ten commandments or a version of such? As you state later this isn't always clear. Following this idea, it seems we are stuck playing a game of which we don't even know the rules. A game designed for us to lose, simply because this God, has deemed it necessary to punish us for eternity for a deed we do not even understand. The original act of depravity we have committed must have been extreme, for a God to punish us so for eternity.

This God does not seem omnibenevolent at all then. If she were, then wouldn't she seek to rehabilitate us rather than to punish us? Or is this a do some evil for the greater good type scenario? In which case this God is capable of evil. Therefore, cannot be omnibenevolent. A God that freely allows us to wallow in our ignorance, and allows all the evils of the world to occur to us, on random chance (think of children that die too young, or suffer needlessly in isolation and despair in parts of our world that have the lowest of standards of living); is not a benevolent God. The fact that we are left ignorant in our depravity, deprives us of the very opportunity to correct our wrongdoing.

But, you did mention that this God loathes us anyway. We are hated. And we deserve it. This makes God vindictive, not benevolent. A benevolent God would not watch us suffer. This instead sounds like the work of a sadist.

No, that's not the main goal at all, that's simply an opportunity we have been given. An omnipotent being has no problem realizing her goals - she could eradicate our depravity in the blink of an eye if she wanted. (Plus it is not always clear what the right thing to do is, yet it would be crystal clear if rehabilitation was a primary goal). Again, we are not living here for our benefit - the idea that we are is heretical for it supposes that God was incapable of giving us such benefits absent the harms, or that God is an arsehole and only likes giving people benefits if she can harm you as well into the bargain. Either thought reveals a corrupt nature on the part of the thinker. The goal - which she could realize in any way she wanted, but has chosen this way - is to protect others from us and to give us our just deserts.

Our existence then is pointless beyond the act of just serving out our time.

And yes, I can see the logic of the form of your argument if we accept the premise as true.

Again, that's pointless and arrogant. The meaning - the purpose - of your life is not in your gift. Any purpose you want your life here to serve is impotent to make that the purpose of your life, for it is too late on the scene.

This is a matter of perspective, and only true when accepting this premise.

Personally, I'd rather find /create meaning in the act of my rebellion, and decorate my cell. This God can piss off, she doesn't care anyway, and neither should we, hey?

If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Then of course, there is no God.

What are these moral standards? Are we talking the ten commandments or a version of such? — CountVictorClimacusIII

The commands constitutive of morality. Moral standards are standards, yes? Well, those. I don't know why you mention the 10 commandments. You must be supposing me a CHristian or something, even though nothing in my arguments gave you any ground for that. I am not a CHristian, I just follow reason.

To find out what is right and what is wrong - so, what we are bid do, and what we are bid not do - one uses one's faculty of reason, the mechanism whereby Reason gives us the opportunity to reform (not that she cares much whether we do or not).

Following this idea, it seems we are stuck playing a game of which we don't even know the rules. — CountVictorClimacusIII

No, the implication is that rehabilitation - so knowing and doing as Reason bids - is not the primary reason we're here. Hence why the rules are not always crystal clear. What's the alternative - that she made them unclear because she loves us so much?!

To stress again: she doesn't like us. Clearly. She's nice enough that she's given us some insight into what we have to do if we're to stand any chance of release. But she's not gone out of her way or made matters crystal clear. Don't you think she'd have made it clear if reform was the whole point of the exercise?

The original act of depravity we have committed must have been extreme, for a God to punish us so for eternity. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I didn't mention eternity. Why would it be eternity?

This God does not seem omnibenevolent at all then. If she were, then wouldn't she seek to rehabilitate us rather than to punish us? Or is this a do some evil for the greater good type scenario? In which case this God is capable of evil. Therefore, cannot be omnibenevolent. A God that freely allows us to wallow in our ignorance, and allows all the evils of the world to occur to us, on random chance (think of children that die too young, or suffer needlessly in isolation and despair in parts of our world that have the lowest of standards of living); is not a benevolent God. The fact that we are left ignorant in our depravity, deprives us of the very opportunity to correct our wrongdoing. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Question begging. You're assuming you're innocent and that so is everyone else here. No matter what I argue you're going to keep making that assumption. The evidence is that you're not. If you think otherwise, identify a false premise in my demonstration. For you asked me for a demonstration, and I gave you it. But now it seems that it doesn't count and you're free to assume you're innocent despite the demonstration that you're not.

A good person doesn't like evil people. A good person dislikes them. A good person doesn't think that someone who's behaved abysmally deserves the same benefits as someone who's behaved well. A good person is outraged at bad things happening to innocent people. By the same token, they are not outraged when bad things happen to blameworthy people - to people who were actively trying to visit such bad things on innocent others.

Harms are not always morally bad and benefits not always morally good. It matters who gets the benefits. It was not a good thing that Dr Mengele, the Angel of Death at Auschwitz, lived out the remainder of his live in luxury in South America. That isn't a fact that, upon learning, makes a good person think "ah, well at least some good came of it!". Someone who had that thought - someone who saw Dr Mengele's post holocaust success as a silver lining - is morally corrupt, not a saint.

So, living well and enjoying yourself are not always good - sometimes they're bad. A good person helps others, but they don't help a burglar to jimmy open a window. A good person does not help others indiscriminately. So, good people are not opposed to all suffering and in favour of all happiness. It matters whose happiness it is.

You are crudely assuming that happiness is an unalloyed good and suffering an unalloyed bad. But if you reflect, your reason will tell you that that's false. And therein lies another clue, if any were needed, as to why you are here. You are assuming a crude and empty picture of what moral goodness involves. It doesn't involve an absence of hate, or an absence of a desire to harm. Good people hate - it matters who you hate - and good people desire that harm comes to people - they just care who.

Our existence then is pointless beyond the act of just serving out our time. — CountVictorClimacusIII

How is it pointless? It has a point. It's just a point most of us would rather it not have. (Doesn't it make you a bit suspicious that most people think the point of their life happens to be a point they'd like it to have?).

And yes, I can see the logic of the form of your argument if we accept the premise as true. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Ah, the self-indulgence rears its head again. The premises are all self-evidently true. It's not in your gift to make them false by just denying them. That's got a name - it's called 'the idiot's veto'.

2 + 2 = 4. If you think it = 5 you're wrong. You can assume it all you like, it won't = 5.

You can think my argument invalid. But it isn't. It's valid as those with reason can tell.

And you can just reject a premise. But that won't make any of them false. They're all true. THey just lead to a conclusion you dislike. And you think, mistakenly, that your attitudes determine reality and thus that your dislike of the conclusion is evidence that a premise is false. Yes? You're not reforming your ways at all! You, like so many others, prefer to listen to yourself than to Reason. Oh well - that's why you're here!

Do you truly believe the world to be wonderful, do you truly enjoy the company of your fellow man, have you shouldered the burden of your responsibility with commitment, passion and love? Do these convictions truly represent you, your beliefs, your ideals, your desires, your motives? If yes, then perhaps you're on the path of inner peace and true harmony with yourself, others and the world around you. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think you're making is sound more complicated than it really is. We don't need to reach enlightenment to feel the way I've described. We don't need to be on some difficult, arcane spiritual path. I think it's more of a question of temperament. I am far from inner peace, but I see I'm responsible for my life. I don't think that's all that uncommon, although it probably is here where philosophers roam. Philosophers are an unhappy bunch.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. With all our effort. — CountVictorClimacusIII

I think most spiritual paths lead to a cessation of effort, surrender.

If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Then of course, there is no God. — CountVictorClimacusIII

And the universe continues to function as it does.

To find out what is right and what is wrong - so, what we are bid do, and what we are bid not do - one uses one's faculty of reason, the mechanism whereby Reason gives us the opportunity to reform

Ok, so let me give you a scenario. Say we were at war. You had a choice to go to war and fight for your country, and let's assume here, your belief in that it is the "right" thing to do to protect your freedoms. At the same time you had your old mother at home, who needs you to help her with her day to day activities of daily living. Using your powers of absolute Reason, which choice is the morally correct one, to go to war, or to stay at home and look after your mother?

I didn't mention eternity. Why would it be eternity?

Fair point. Eternity seems like a long time.

So, living well and enjoying yourself are not always good - sometimes they're bad. A good person helps others, but they don't help a burglar to jimmy open a window. A good person does not help others indiscriminately. So, good people are not opposed to all suffering and in favour of all happiness. It matters whose happiness it is.

This (and your following statement) I can agree with. Context is important for good to be good. So why are we all in this prison then? We've all been lumped in the category of depravity then?

Ah, the self-indulgence rears its head again. The premises are all self-evidently true. It's not in your gift to make them false by just denying them. That's got a name - it's called 'the idiot's veto'.

So, what if there is no God? Your premise seems logical if God exists, but your premise does not prove absolutely, His existence:

1. If God exists, she would not permit innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists

What if we flip this over to:

1. If God does not exist, then innocent creatures can and do live in ignorance and in a dangerous world.
2. God does not exist.

Then:

3. Therefore, the absence of God means innocent creatures do live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance and in a dangerous world
5. Therefore, innocence and depravity are irrelevant, as is the judgement or actions of a fictitious deity, we are simply creatures living in ignorance in a dangerous world.

What happens to the prison idea here (?)

And you can just reject a premise. But that won't make any of them false. They're all true. THey just lead to a conclusion you dislike. And you think, mistakenly, that your attitudes determine reality and thus that your dislike of the conclusion is evidence that a premise is false. Yes? You're not reforming your ways at all! You, like so many others, prefer to listen to yourself than to Reason. Oh well - that's why you're here!

Prove God's existence. What makes your premise true when the logical opposite can also be argued for with the same use of Reason?

I think most spiritual paths lead to a cessation of effort, surrender.

Indeed. Personally though, I feel this position untenable. The hard or brutal facts of our existence demand an effort from us to continue living. I think a balance between the brutal act of living and a spiritual or transcendent source of connection (finite/infinite) to potentially be a more realistic solution (if the problem we're addressing is spiritual despair). I too accept the responsibility for my life, and yet cannot deny the facts of existing in a finite body within a concrete reality.

I suppose we could sell everything and live in the mountains to be as close to nature as possible, but the brute facts of survival in the natural world also require effort. Surrendering to a spiritual path is an attractive thought, I just see it as difficult to properly apply in practice. The Ego always makes itself known, even in the deepest states of meditation, it fights to be recognized. Wouldn't it be a better alternative to find a way to integrate them both?

Philosophers are an unhappy bunch.

True :lol: