So God is a concept to define temporal existence, not a mundane material creature like ourselves. — Gnomon
But Holistic philosophers find such concepts necessary for their quest to probe the limits of reality : the General, the Principle, the Whole, of which all real things are mere specks of dust. — Gnomon
Do you think Spinoza would agree with the label : "god of the philosophers", as contrasted with the God of theologians, and the godless-but-fecund Material World of scientists? :chin: — Gnomon
I didn't say must. God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly. All I want to say is that excluding you there is also God who can read your thoughts and can experience your feelings. So excluding you, it is only God who can judge you properly. I believe in Karma which is imposed by God so your wrong action is not without consequences.So you want to demonstrate that god exists, and that therefore the world must be fair and just. — Banno
Prove it.But the world is not fair and just. — Banno
You need to prove your second premise.Therefore you are mistaken. There is no god.
If god exists, then the world is fair. The world is not fair. Therefore god does not exist. — Banno
Show me what is wrong with my arguments.Hence your arguments are all of them faulty. — Banno
God didn't create humans. We know that human is the result of evolution.But does not God create humans to have free will? — Richard B
God is a free agent so God can act Unjustly but that is not what an all-wise agent does.And if so, can choose in such a way to create an unfair and unjust world? — Richard B
No. The term "moral crusade" sounds like a militant Christian concept, not a peaceful Philosophical quest for an ethical society. The bloody medieval crusades were "prosecuted" by physically and legalistically attacking unbelievers, as directed by the crusader's "king" in heaven : "in hoc signo vinces". I doubt that would think in such terms ; I certainly don't. And I don't know of any comparable philosophical "crusades", involving sword-wielding metaphysicians. The idea sounds absurd.I do see Wayfarer as prosecuting a moral crusade, so yeah, I did introduce the term. It was you that suggested that the whole of philosophy has been a moral crusade and I asked you for examples and to explain why you see the chosen example(s) as constituting a moral crusade. — Janus
Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin:BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. — boundless
There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts. Unlike Theism, this view does not presume that the parts have any inkling of the mind of God. And it does not imagine that humans are the darlings of the deity. So, any natural injustice or unfairness is not personally directed, but merely the nonpartisan workings of a material physical world, in which some creatures live on the life of other creatures. And some creatures develop moral qualms about killing other living things.Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions. — boundless
The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile:Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything. — boundless
We were not talking about worship. Who said that God needs worship? I said that God can act Unjustly since God is free. That however does not mean that God would act Unjustly since God is all-wise.Some further problems then: is an unjust god worthy of worship? — Banno
Sure not.And ought you do as an unjust god commands? — Banno
Good.We were not talking about worship. — MoK
This deserves its own response. Fear of divine judgement is a way of ensuring your conformity.All I want to say is that excluding you there is also God who can read your thoughts and can experience your feelings. So excluding you, it is only God who can judge you properly. I believe in Karma which is imposed by God so your wrong action is not without consequences. — MoK
Not sure what this means. Would you be willing to go against divine command, or ought you do as an unjust god demands?Sure not. — MoK
That may be the implication raised in the article that motivated me to start this thread. But I didn't express it so succinctly. Some Theists seem to take the attitude : "let go and let God". Ironically, a few respondents seem to have assumed that's what I was trying to say. If so, what would be the point of philosophy? :smile:I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just.
That is, it is a theology of moral inaction. As such it is reprehensible. — Banno
What evidence do you need? Do you think that all things done in the name of humanity are right?I don't think you have addressed the main line of thought here. That is, that if one thinks the world is just, despite the evidence to the contrary, the result is to excuse oneself from moral responsibility to make the world more just. — Banno
There is no other solution to it while not all humans are not all-wise. Could you imagine what our lives would be like if we didn't submit to human-made laws? Some people are wise so they follow the laws with respect and without fear of consequences. But the laws are needed for those who are not wise enough. So, fear should be in place until we educate all people well enough so they act by wisdom rather than fear.This deserves its own response. Fear of divine judgement is a way of ensuring your conformity. — Banno
All-wise God wouldn't demand an unjust action. I wouldn't act according to the demand of an unjust god though.Not sure what this means. Would you be willing to go against divine command, or ought you do as an unjust god demands? — Banno
No, it is not fear.Is it fear of retribution that keeps you from recognising the injustice in the world? — Banno
Only if we make it so. — Banno
Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon
If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd: — Gnomon
The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile: — Gnomon
The world is just.Let's go over it again. The world is not fair and just. — Banno
Yes, we can make the world a right place to live. But we don't. That is why the Karam is in place and people are suffering. If any individual gets enlightened then there would be no need for Karma.We can make it more fair and just. — Banno
That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty.Proposing a god who makes the world fair and just both denies the fact of injustice and excuses lack of action. — Banno
That is not God's duty to make the world the right place for living. It is our main duty. — MoK
I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin:Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons. — boundless
Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo:There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon
Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts? — boundless
So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool:Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended. — boundless
I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd:Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts. — boundless
I think God cannot create humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow.Just curious, why would an all powerful god outsource that? — schopenhauer1
To make sure that the outcome of life is proper.And if the answer is he wants to see some puddly apes play out some vision, why would an all knowing god care to see this? — schopenhauer1
What do you mean?Isn’t planning and carrying out one’s vision a very human like trait? — schopenhauer1
It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter.Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin: — schopenhauer1
To make sure that the outcome of life is proper. — MoK
I think God cannot create humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow. — MoK
Seems like the most powerful and all knowing thing would have no need for plans or need to be “happy or satisfied” that they are carried out or not. It all seems conveniently anthropocentric :chin: — schopenhauer1
I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon
Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo: — Gnomon
So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool: — Gnomon
I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon
It is not about being happy or satisfied. It is about performing the duty. And it is not about humans, since animals, plants, and other species matter. — MoK
How could God NOT be anthropomorphic, anthropocentric, anthropic in all ways, since God is OUR creation? Even if we ditch the hairy thunderer in the sky and go for the elevated omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent all-loving God (which is some sort of wishful thinking on our part) God is still ours.
Even if a divinity actually exists. we evolved apes don't have anything remotely close to direct access to this divinity. We have to "make it up", which we have done several times over. — BC
I too, am surprised at the mississippi river length, and off-topic delta, that the OP's yes or no question has prompted. I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. One post above came close to summarizing the contentious issue behind an ancient philosophical conundrum. :smile:↪Gnomon
I find some amusement in the length this thread has reached, given what seems so obvious to me, that life is definitely, obviously, overwhelmingly NOT fair and just. Maybe we who are here to comment are the lucky beneficiaries of life's unfairness and injustice? — BC
I suppose its a sign that Fairness & Justice are touchy topics for philosophically and religiously inclined posters. — Gnomon
With the aim to the perfection of life.What do you mean, "proper"? — BC
God as an omnipresent agent experiences everything in the present and past. Our experiences are however local in space and time (present only). We can however have access to our past experiences, so-called flashbacks.So, according to some theologians, God is omnipresent, and omni everything else--meaning that God is aware of and present in everything that happens in creation. So, when the first molecules formed the first cell, God is there and is present and is aware of the first cell and the death of the last cell, and everything in between. Time, as creation experiences it, is not a thing God experiences, God being eternal.
God, being eternal and all-powerful after all, gets to do that. — BC
Humans and God share common traits. Traits like Wisdom, Justice, and the like are traits of many different agents. If an agent does not have any trait then how she/he/it could interact with reality?Why would God, all knowing, powerful, perfect being care about duty of his creation to himself? Seems again like a petty human trait :chin:. Odd, how God seems so human- almost like humans would invent something like this... — schopenhauer1
I said this to another poster and I think it is proper for our discussion too: "I think God cannot create perfect humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow."No, it isn't.
But perhaps you can't bring yourself to see that, because your faith depends on it.
If the world is already just, then there could be no "duty" for us to make the world just. Another contradiction in your position. — Banno
sub specie aeternitatis — boundless
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.