If the logic still can be used to describe reality, is it even faulty? — ToothyMaw
But if we can confirm that the appropriate application of logic always leads to correct outcomes, or almost always, then why do we have reason to doubt its integrity? — ToothyMaw
But in this scenario, God is not really powerless, is he? For he has the power to take back his all encompassing powers, otherwise he will be stuck forevermore as a mere human. — PhilosophyRunner
It would just mean that our logic system is faulty. What we use as a logical system, is a flawed system. — PhilosophyRunner
Here is an example of a piece of logic.
Premise 1: I get letters if and only if the postman visited
Premise 2: I got letters today
Conclusion: The postman visited
If the two premises are true, then logically the conclusions must be true as we understand it.
Now what about if contradictory things can happen? "I get letters if and only if the postman visited" and "I got letter without the postman visiting" can both be true in such a world. The two premises no longer logically result that the conclusion must be true. — PhilosophyRunner
But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions. See my above post with an example. — PhilosophyRunner
A question I have would be, can anyone else in the position of the God-who-is-for-now-human, also go through the same learning process and gain the same powers? — PhilosophyRunner
But our system of logic cannot cope with contradictions — PhilosophyRunner
I'm saying that we wouldn't be able to use the donkey logic at all, but we reliably can, and that would indicate that our logic is not faulty. If the logic is faulty then why would one be able to use that logic to come to correct conclusions? And if you are saying faulty logic would have no effect on our ability to form arguments then why would there be an issue for the arguments applied to God? — ToothyMaw
So if contradictory things can really happen, then there is reason to suspect the world painted by logic. — PhilosophyRunner
our system of logic — Benj96
Premise 1: God is capable of making contradictions true
Premise 2: X is unjust
Premise 3: God let X happen even though he could have prevented it
Conclusion: God is unjust — PhilosophyRunner
Would you say that adults should allow their children to suffer injustices at each other's hands merely so they can be judged by adults? That we should allow children to suffer so we can test them? — ToothyMaw
And what about good people that get cancer? How are we supposed to enact justness there? If we can't enact justness, then shouldn't God protect good people from injustices we cannot rectify if he is even remotely just? — ToothyMaw
Expecting God to do everything for us so we needn't do anything is lumping the means by which we show God who we are onto God's lap, which would be pointless because God created creation to see how we react to life. — Hallucinogen
Then God really half-assed creation. We could demonstrate our worth, compassion, bravery, ingenuity etc. in a world with significantly less suffering. — ToothyMaw
I said it was our responsibility to create just outcomes in society; allowing our children to suffer injustices would be the opposite of that. — Hallucinogen
People don't have the power to decide the fate and destination of other people's spirits, unlike God. — Hallucinogen
From the rest of your comment, I'm getting a strong impression of left-wing idealism and bitterness about inequality, which tells me that your moral intuitions here are just expressions of your personality rather than moral statements I have to acknowledge as being objective or factual. — Hallucinogen
No, this is just your moral intuition/outrage again. I don't have to accept the assertion that God should do anything. Intervening to cure every person of cancer would make creating a world with cancer in it pointless. — Hallucinogen
Cancer gives the sufferer (who is ultimately an alter-ego of God) the opportunity to experience and learn from mortality in a particular way, and it gives a unique experience to their loved ones and anyone trying to help them as well. — Hallucinogen
This is yet again you repeating the insistence there should be significantly less suffering, which I don't have to accept because it is an expression of your personality. — Hallucinogen
I'm curious how you think we could demonstrate our compassion in a world with significantly less suffering, though. Wouldn't that mean significantly less compassion? — Hallucinogen
No nothing went over my head. You were pointing out something in agreement with what I originally stated, which was:The analogy just went over your head. I understand letting children suffer would be an injustice - thus I pointed it out. — ToothyMaw
When you responded asking whether we should "allow children to suffer so we can test them?", I had therefore already answered this question in the comment I made you were responding to. So I don't know which analogy you think I missed, if it isn't the comparison you made between people's responsibility to intervene and God's responsibility to intervene, which I've pointed out isn't a correct comparison.We have free will and it is our responsibility to create just outcomes in society. — Hallucinogen
Yes that's definitely correct, and I didn't assert at any point such a dependency of our responsibility to intervene on God's unfathomability.If we allow those whose condition we have control over to suffer, then we are guilty for not preventing that suffering, no matter how, as I have had to point out many times in this thread, unfathomable God is — ToothyMaw
This is just you repeating that you think God is responsible for creating justice among humans, when I've already pointed out this is our responsibility which you haven't countered, as well as you assuming that God doesn't create justice in heaven in rectification for that earthly suffering. God has power over the destination of person's spirit, which is the reason why allowing suffering in the material realm does not make God unjust, as he can rectify this in heaven, according to the suffering someone suffered.Then God is even more culpable than the parent who lets their child suffer, as he has absolute control over our outcomes and whether or not they are just. — ToothyMaw
Hello left-wing utopianism. Everyone gets a participation trophy, and anything less than that is all God's fault! I'm concluding here that you're just angry at reality for containing suffering and that you're just going to keep insisting that the responsibility lies in God's lap instead of in the laps of people who make those decisions, while ignoring that the justice God appropriates is divine and therefore trumps any assertion of injustice on God's part you can make.We could just try to arrange society in such a way that people get what they deserve? Do you honestly believe that someone could only be rewarded with a Nobel Prize if someone else falls off a cliff? What connection is there between some people's suffering, or the lack of just outcomes, and the just outcomes others receive, and why couldn't we all at least mostly get what we deserve? — ToothyMaw
Hello left-wing utopianism. Everyone gets a participation trophy, and anything less than that is all God's fault! I'm concluding here that you're just angry at reality for containing suffering and that you're just going to keep insisting that the responsibility lies in God's lap instead of in the laps of people who make those decisions — Hallucinogen
We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that. — Alkis Piskas
We create a God ourselves, and then we realize that He is not just and then compalin about that. — Alkis Piskas
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.