Yes. Thank your God for creating it, since you consider pain good. Job questioned it and Jehovah told him : Because I'm bigger than you. He accepted that and if it's fine for you, be happy. I disagree that there is anything intelligent or benevolent in a system that requires antelope to die in agony, torn apart by lions. They don't get the option of "working with it".But if we want to live at all, we’re going to have to work with it. I didn’t say like it, I said work with it. — Fire Ologist
They don't get the option of "working with it". — Vera Mont
The other antelopes do.
The lions do.
The vultures do.
The bacteria do.
The grass does. — Fire Ologist
Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? — BitconnectCarlos
says who? — flannel jesus
If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong — BitconnectCarlos
necessarily thrive or self-actualize — BitconnectCarlos
Although the head may err, the blood will never be wrong. — Nakajima Atsushi
I did, see above. — Lionino
Remove God and life can lose its sanctity quickly. — BitconnectCarlos
The truth is, you are both right.That right? All the time the majority of the people believed in God, none of them killed any other? — Vera Mont
Or vice versa. People who claim a religion don't just kill the irreligious and the heretics, they also kill those who profess a different version of their own religion, and those who profess their same religion but fight for a different king, people of their own nation and faith accused of crimes, their rivals, neighbours, fathers, spouses and other drunks at the same tavern.But I don't think history shows religious people any worse than irreligious or atheistic people. — Ludwig V
He's right, of course, in his annoying way. Either there's a justification for that difference or there isn't. If there isn't, then morality is deficient. But I think there is. Cockroaches are annoying and dangerous. Butterflies mostly are not, but they are beautiful - except perhaps when they are caterpillars. (That's awkward, I admit) I don't see anything dubious about not destroying beautiful things that do no harm and something very dubious about not destroying dangerous things that are harmful.“If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero. If you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morals have aesthetic criteria.” - Nietzsche — BitconnectCarlos
If something is not necessarily right then it could possibly be wrong. Evolution helps us survive, not necessarily thrive or self-actualize. — BitconnectCarlos
Evolution doesn't give a toss whether individuals or a given species survive or not. It doesn't even care much if a species survives. It is a consequence of the genetic variation of individuals within a species and the random effects of that variation on the survival and reproduction of traits amongst those individuals. Morality has nothing to do with it.Do you not think that the values that we define as necessary for those two are given (majorly) by evolution? — Lionino
On that basis, agnosticism is the only rational response. (It is my preferred response if people ever ask me.) But there are a number of physical impossibilities, not to mention improbabilities, about that the green donkey hypothesis that make it, in my view, unreasonable to be agnostic about it. I assume that you focus on logical possibilities because that's the tradition of our philosophy. But we have to live with physical impossibilities as well, so it seems a bit peculiar to ignore them, if what you want to understand is human beings."Erm, I can't say either way", even though there is nothing logically contradictory about a green floating donkey tidally locked behind Jupiter in respect to the Earth. — Lionino
That's the logical procedure, and some theists do like to try to follow it. But God isn't an empirical hypothesis. It is how you frame your life. What God means, according to the religions, is how one should (try to) live one's life. (What science means is not just the philosophy of science, but how you do it in practice.) Admittedly, how that works out in practice can be a bit puzzling to outsiders, but that's how the ideas work. (The same is true of science) To put it another way, if you start by defining God, that may turn out not to be a hypothesis, but an axiom. And there's no arguing with axioms, except by their results. In this case, the argument has to be about what life the believer leads.First, define what God is, then we can say if we know enough to say, with certainty, that such a thing exists or does not. Maybe we can't reach certainty, in that case we shift to probabilities. — Manuel
But God isn't an empirical hypothesis. It is how you frame your life. What God means, according to the religions, is how one should (try to) live one's life. (What science means is not just the philosophy of science, but how you do it in practice.) Admittedly, how that works out in practice can be a bit puzzling to outsiders, but that's how the ideas work. (The same is true of science) To put it another way, if you start by defining God, that may turn out not to be a hypothesis, but an axiom. And there's no arguing with axioms, except by their results. In this case, the argument has to be about what life the believer leads. — Ludwig V
Yes. People may differ, of course. The view I expressed is unlikely to be acceptable to many believers - though there may be some, with philosophical inclinations who could accept it. There are theologians who would be able to recognize a view like mine.It's not so clear to me, many people treat God as if it were something explanatory, sometimes even empirical, in the broad meaning of the term (which includes personal experience). — Manuel
A nice simple example. But if you look a bit closer, you may think that what is on the surface is not the whole story. When you don't get a bonus, even though you worked just as hard, with the same good results, you don't think maybe it isn't God who gives you the reward, but your employer. You think that God must be angry with you and search for reasons why that might be so. You don't think maybe God is a bit strapped for cash this year so is having to cut back. The idea that it is God who dishes out rewards is protected against refutation. That's important. (I'm sketching here to avoid reams of writing and reading.)Why did I get a bonus at work? God is gracious. What caused my existence? God. Etc. — Manuel
Yes, that's a fair demand. Too many "proofs" of God don't explain what that means. (Hence, we find that the God of the philosophers bears little resemblance to the God of the believers, and that's a problem.)But I do not think that asking for some properties or attributes or facets of God is asking for too much. The more which can be given, the better we can proceed. If it is limited to a Great Being, or a supreme force, then I do not know what this means, or at least, it is very nebulous. — Manuel
In many ways, I'm not happy to be dealing with a God about whom there can be no argumentation. Hence belief in God as a matter of faith, not subject to rational comment, is far too comfortable a retreat for believers. That's why I suggested how the argument might go.And there's no arguing with axioms, except by their results. In this case, the argument has to be about what life the believer leads — Ludwig V
You are maybe a little too pessimistic. People do sometimes abandon their faith. But it's a complex process that may include rational arguments, but religious belief involves more than that, so they are only one factor.So I think we can have arguments about God, even if there may be no chance of getting each other to agree. — Manuel
Maybe we can't reach certainty, in that case we shift to probabilities. — Manuel
On that basis, agnosticism is the only rational response. — Ludwig V
Let's run the argument. "We don't know if god does not exist". The same argument applies just as well (more strongly in fact) to the theist. Ignore Christians or Baha'i, let's take a universalist generic theist: "I believe a personal creator beyond the universe exists". The atheist claims such a being does not exist. The UGT claims such a being exists. Who is more reasonable here?
Let's then say that "we don't know". Here is the problem: you don't whether you will wake up tomorrow, you don't know whether your HS history teacher was really licensed, you don't know whether your dad is really your dad, you don't know whether NASA is really saying the truth, you don't know whether you are dreaming as you read this, and yet you give a good, single-worded, definitive answer when you get asked about all of these matters. But somehow the God question is one of the very few questions where people feel the need to pontificate that we are aren't really sure. — Lionino
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.