Of course, do you? — Janus
:up:Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo. — universeness
well most faiths promise to make this earthly drudgery easier. — 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).It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination. — invicta
I know, but the fact that deism is an ancient proposal adds 0 to it's credibility.The concept of god creating and abandoning creation is not new. — invicta
Yeah, 'what if's,' can be entertaining and entertainment is very subjective and preferential, yes?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
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?You do not abandon things you love…or do you? — invicta
That’s actually a rich one — invicta
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
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.Humans are able to reduce human suffering, so the antinatalist remains a boring defeatist imo. — universeness
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. — Moliere
I much prefer the maritime metaphor for terra incognita. — Moliere
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
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
I like the idea of punk sages. Not the front men or the bands, but say a Pythagorean Punk. — Moliere
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
And in that case, indeed look at the Gnostics. — schopenhauer1
The most recent data shows that the universe contains 8 billion human faces, all on different heads!The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus
The universe is a two faced god and we are its two faced acolytes.. — Janus
What god is there other than the universe? — 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.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
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
Yaldabaoth, the flawed creator of a flawed creation? — 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. — universeness
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
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. — Janus
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. — schopenhauer1
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
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.