That's a really good question. The only answer I can offer to support a claim that such demonstration has not only been impossible in the past, just as it is now, but that it inevitably will be so in the future, would be that when it comes to introspected intuitions we always will be working with the same data, that is the human mind, that we have always been working with.

In science we may be working with previously unknown data, newly discovered phenomena, and I think this has clearly happened in the history of science. But when it comes to the purely speculative metaphysical ideas, unless we admit science into the equation and don't rely solely on intuitions (which has certainly happened in some metaphysical quarters) there would seem to be no new data to work with. And nothing in science itself apart from accurate observations are definitively demonstrably true in any case. Metaphysical ideas seem to be, to repeat loosely something I remember reading somewhere that Hegel said: "the same old stew reheated". I would add to that and say "the same old ancient stew reheated".

Perhaps the reason metaphysics hasn't been given up is on account of, as Kant pointed out, the human inability to let go of such questions, despite the impossibility of definitely answering them. I also think there is much inspiration and joy to be found in such imaginings, especially for the creative type of person. I think speculative fiction is great: just don't imagine that any of it is literally true. We don't need to imagine that in order for it to have poetic value and meaning.

What if this world was not created as an instant Paradise, but as an experiment in Cosmic Creation*1, similar to Whitehead's evolutionary Process — Gnomon

Sure, it's a speculative possibility, and is not inconsistent with a creator God that is either not all-knowing and/ or not all-good, and/ or not all-powerful. Whitehead's God was understood to be evolving along with its creation. I never quite got the need for, or understood the place of, God in Whitehead's system, though.

What we experience is part of what actually happens, no? Even our imagining of stuff actually happens, although what we imagine might not. What other cogent definition of real as distinct from imaginary is there? So, is all you are saying that there are some parts of what actually happens that we cannot access, or are you saying something else? Do you really believe that the things we see have no reality apart from our seeing of them?

A fair distinction. The individual who claims to have made such a discovery may be in the position of indeed having done so, but being faced with the impossibility of ever demonstrating it. (I still don't think anything here is obvious, but no matter. :smile: ) — J

So, you don't think it is obviously impossible to demonstrate that a speculative metaphysical claim (purportedly) based on reliable intuition is just that rather than something merely imagined? If you believe that one might ask then why such has not already been demonstrated such that no impartial person could reasonably question its veracity.

Well, yes. But then philosophy is in direct competition with religion - or, maybe, religion is a species of philosophy for those who don't grasp the point, or importance, of reason.
What people don't seem to face up to that even asking that question presupposes a complex conceptual structure which needs to be in place to enable potential answers to be articulated and evaluated.
I also have serious difficulty that our problem is in any way articulated as a list of options on a menu, from which we choose. Who writes the menu? Perhaps we live as we must and the only question is how far we can mitigate the down-sides that turn up in every item on on the menu. — Ludwig V

Sure, people find their answers where they are capable of looking. As I've said all along I am not at all against people believing whatever they might be capable of believing that gets them through the night and day, whatever provides them emotional sustenance and existential comfort, provided they don't try to force it down others' throats. I have more respect for those who simply hold to their groundless faith without feeling a need to convince others that their faith is the one truth and that it is rationally demonstrable to boot. That's just nonsense; the very fact that such believes can be rationally questioned shows that there are no demonstrable absolute truths.

Then, from Gods perspective it might be good when people suffer. And since his opinion is the only one that matters, — goremand

We've reached the end of our conversation, because it has circled back to the point where you are saying the opposite of what I said earlier which was that it is only human opinions which matter. No one knows God, so there can be only human opinions as to what God's opinion is. To say that God's opinion trumps human opinions is to abandon rationality altogether and rely on a completely groundless faith that revelation shows the absolute truth. I'm not prepared to waste my time arguing against anyone who believes that. As Mark Twain said: "Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".

Would you say that what we see is a part of reality? Would reality "as it is" for you equate to what exists unseen or beyond or beneath what is seen?

Good. And starting with Kant, and the relation of metaphysics to human knowledge, would be a sensible program. We could take a sounding on what is indeed possible, both to know and/or to verify. My only quibble: If the conclusion here is obvious, as you say, one wonders why the debate has nonetheless gone on with vigor for so long -- i.e., you may be right, but not obviously right. — J

Note that i haven't said that the discovery of universal metaphysical truths via intellectual intuition is obviously impossible, but that it is obviously impossible to demonstrate that what has been purportedly discovered is truly a discovery and not simply an imagining. I wonder how, and hence if, we could ever go about demonstrating such a thing. As far as I can tell it remains, and always will remain, a matter of faith. I'm always ready to be corrected on that.

So, the Bang must have had the potential for purpose. — Gnomon

That would only seem to hold if you take the so-called laws of nature to be fixed and immutable from the beginning. Peirce didn't think that, and as far as I remember from studying Whitehead quite long ago, nor did he.

Misery cannot but be bad according to <the human conception of goodness>.
— Janus

I take this to be saying that humanity has a single agreed-upon definition of goodness, and that misery is bad according to that definition. I think that is obviously false. For example, there are people who think that it is good for sinners to suffer. They think this not because they are irrational, but because they have a different idea of goodness than you do. — goremand

A weak response. You continue to ignore context and try to shift the blame for your poor comprehension onto a purported lack of clarity. I haven't said that no one ever thinks it is good for someone else to suffer. Of course they may think that but that only strengthens my argument: they think it is good for the evil or hated person to suffer as punishment, because they understand that suffering is bad for the one who deserves punishment.

I have always been talking about good and suffering per se. The fact that suffering to some degree might be good for the athlete; "no pain, no gain" does not weaken my argument because this, as well as punishment thought of as reformatory is always already in the context of the world that contains suffering we find ourselves in.

The theological notions of heaven and hell also demonstrate my point. Heaven is the desirable place of no suffering and hell the most feared place of endless suffering. Buddhism too, has as its aim the ending of all suffering for all beings. Religions in general have as their aim in one form or another salvation from suffering; which only goes to show that suffering, misery is universally considered to be, as such, bad.

So, the idea of a perfectly good and loving, all-knowing and all powerful being as the creator of this world is incompatible with the realities of this world, as it follows logically that he could have created a perfect world of no suffering for his creatures for the start. That has been the thrust of my whole argument and your strawmanning and throwing in of red herrings has done nothing to weaken it.

It depends what you call philosophy and what you call religion. Boethius (and many others in his time) certainly thought that philosophy could provide consolation. How would you classify his attempt? Ancient philosophers seem mostly to have been confident that philosophy can help us to cope with suffering. But since the scientific revolution, that project seems to have been more or less abandoned and so left to religion (where humanism would count as a religion).

I do want to high-light the difference between two projects, but I don't want to over-simiplify it.
Consoling someone in distress is not the same project as someone analysing the causes of that distress, even though the two projects play into each other.

This is not something I have thought through, but something I am working out. — Ludwig V

I take philosophy to be primarily about how best to live. I guess the question is as to whether we need consolation or whether we need to come to terms with our condition. Would coming to terms with our condition, in the sense of being able to be at peace with it without expecting anything greater to be on offer to count as consolation? Or should we consider only a promise in some form or other, of some more perfect life to come, as we find in the various religions, to count as consolation?

Perhaps the problem here turns on the difference between recognizing suffering and coming to terms with it. Philosophy emphasizes recognizing it; religion is primarily concerned with coming to terms with it. — Ludwig V

Are you suggesting that it is (only?) through religion, and not through philosophy that we can come to terms with suffering?

If there are moral facts, how do we determine what they are? People can obviously disagree about which principles are moral facts. On the one hand there is near-universal agreement that murder, rape, theft and other serious crimes are morally wrong. It is arguably a fact that if those major crimes were not illegal within communities then those communities would fall apart.

This is not so with issues like sex before marriage and homosexuality, they seem fairly clearly to come down to cultural preferences. In another thread you claimed homosexuality is wrong, not just for you but per se, and you will probably claim that is a moral fact. And yet the majority today probably disagree with you. Facts are demonstrable, how are you going to demonstrate that homosexuality is objectively morally wrong?

I’ve met some Catholics, particularly among the Missionaries of Charity, who seemed to believe that misery is a sign of special blessing from God. They wouldn’t say that suffering is good in itself, but they regarded it as a form of grace and they do venerate it. Possibly a sign that the miserable are active participants in the suffering of Jesus. — Tom Storm

Right, given that we already find ourselves thrown into a world of potential suffering, then actually encountering suffering may be considered to be the only way to learn to come to terms with it. Of course they also presume reward in the afterlife for the pious.

At first I thought you were saying that "suffering is bad" is a priori true. Then I thought you were saying "suffering is bad" is a universally held belief. Now it seems you saying "most people think suffering is bad" which is a trivial and irrelevant claim. — goremand

If you had understood what I've been saying you would have seen that the fact that most people consider suffering to be bad is not irrelevant to the argument against the Churches' traditional conception of God, and the God presented in the Old Testament. I'm not going to spoon-feed you further. If you want to critique what I've said then go back and read it, quote what I've said and say precisely where you think it's wrong if you disagree.

Again, this might be true. But whether it's true is a philosophical question. It seems to me that discussing that question is neither apologetics nor phenomenology, but plain old epistemology, wouldn't you say? As such, shouldn't it be a respectable activity for a philosopher?

Perhaps what you're saying is that you believe you have independent and solid grounds for insisting that only propositional truths can be helpful in metaphysics -- and moreover, that religious discourse can't supply them. I bet you can guess what I'm going to say next! :smile: : This may be true, but whether it's true requires . . . more philosophy. — J

I agree that all of what you cited are fitting problems for philosophy. But I also think that ever since Kant, Hegel notwithstanding, it has been obvious that the traditional idea that one could arrive at metaphysical truths via intellectual intuition is, if not impossible, at least impossible to verify.

That third "omni" is the problem. — Gnomon

Yes the three Omni-God is inconsistent with human ideas of goodness and justice, ened of story. So something has to give. Either God would have liked to create a perfect world free of suffering but was unable to do so, or didn't realize what he had done in creating the world, or else such a god simply does not exist in which case there is no "problem of Suffering".

The three-in-one Christian god-head is still popular among the masses, but waning with the intelligentsia, who are more impressed by rational evidence than by emotional myths. That's why I think A.N. Whitehead's update of Spinoza's nature-god is more appropriate for the 21st century. Spinoza referred to his Ultimate Substance as "God", and Whitehead used the same term for his Ultimate Principle of Progressive "Concretion" (evolution). — Gnomon

Sure but Spinoza, probably out of not wishing to offend the religious authorities even further than he already had and out of his belief that the masses need a personal conception of God anyway, spoke in terms of "Deus sive Natura", where he could have simply spoken of natura. An impersonal God offers no comfort, and Spinoza did not believe in any afterlife.

I'm not making claims about humanity but about most people.All I can think if you really believe many people think it is good to be miserable is that you live your life with eyes closed.

If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception.
— Janus

Exceedingly narrowminded, in my opinion. "Suffering is good" is perhaps a strange and disturbing claim but I wouldn't say it's a literal contradiction in terms. Maybe it is a contradiction under your conception of goodness, but that's all it is: your conception. — goremand

I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception".

As it happens, I agree with you about the rational arguments. I believe religion begins where philosophy ends. And theology, that halfway house, has never interested me much. But let me push back a little on your final sentence, or at least the "fitting" part. Whether it is true -- whether it's fitting for philosophy to examine rational apologetics -- is itself a philosophical question. The arguments themselves may or may not fit comfortably within philosophical practice. But that too is a philosophical question.

I'm pointing out this peculiarity of philosophy: To consider whether something should be ruled in or out of philosophy is . . . to do more philosophy! And I'm sure you're not saying that the meta-question itself is inappropriate. — J

I agree religion begins where philosophy ends. I once was interested in and read a good bit of theology but I found it all very arbitrary and vacuously speculative, ultimately a waste of time.

When I said religion has no place in philosophy I meant religious apologetics and theology. From a phenomenological perspective religion certainly has a place, it is an important aspect of human life. Faith itself is a powerful and important part of the human condition, and since it can be transformative, whole-life altering, it deserves a place in philosophy. Such experiences do not have a place in metaphysics as I see it, because we cannot tell what they really mean or even if they mean anything at all, beyond what they mean to the individual having the experience.

People experience powerful altered states and they cannot help interpreting them to indicate some metaphysical truth or other according to their cultural predispositions. While this process may indeed be of phenomenological interest, it cannot be held to yield any propositional truth, and so could be of no help for metaphysics.

1. There is a way the world ought to be only if there is a God.
2. There is a way the world ought to be, even though the world is not the way it ought to be.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

Interested in your thoughts. — NotAristotle

We think there is a way the world ought to be because it is far from being the way we would like it to be, so I don't see how God comes into it. If there is a way the world ought to be and if there is a God who could have made it that way, then why didn't he?

2. is kind of a redundant expression: if the world was the way it ought to be, then the world would be as it ought to be, so if there is a way the world ought to be and it is not, then that the world is not as it ought to be is a given.

3. I can't see any way in which "therefore there is a God" follows, unless it is simply stipulated in the first premise, in which case it is a circular argument. Also are we talking about the human world or the natural world or both?

The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies that God is fine with human misery. When you do get there you can choose to reject the notion that "God is good" or the notion that "misery is bad", but I wouldn't say either choice makes you irrational. — goremand

If God is fine with human misery then he is not good according to the human conception of goodness. Misery cannot but be bad according to that conception. The simple solution is there is no reason to believe in such a God.

Completely agree. Traditional Christian theology is primitive, in this area. But I think we can "expand the circle of compassion" without necessarily moving out of the Abrahamic traditions entirely. (FWIW, I've been an animal-rights advocate -- and vegan -- for decades.) — J

That's a step in the right direction. I just don't see why we need God. I don't personally see any reason to believe in God...I think it all comes down to upbringings and personal conviction. I cannot criticize someone else's personal convictions in this matter because I cannot inhabit their experience.

What I can criticize are rational arguments for the existence of God, and weak apologetics...I've examined them all and none of them work. If you are a believer why not accept that, simply believe on the strength of feeling alone. like Kierkegaard's arational "leap of faith" and leave others to their own feelings in the matter? For many reasons I don't think it is an interesting or fitting topic for philosophical discussion.

When you {plural} use the word "God" are you referring to A) the triune God of Christianity, one aspect of whom is a person capable of empathizing with human suffering? Which may be an attempt to reconcile the "notion of justice" with an omniscient abstract God, incapable of suffering . Or B) to the omnipotent (necessary & sufficient) God of Spinoza, which is the non-personal force of Nature, that is no respecter of persons, hence dispenser of impartial natural justice (it is what it is)? — Gnomon

I was referring to the three omnis: omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The Chrisitan conception of God is of a loving personal God, one who cares for all his creatures. The nature of His creation (assuming just for the sake of argument that there were such a creator God) belies the conception that God could be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. It a pretty easy to understand inconsistency which keeps getting glossed over by believers.

Spinoza's critique of that conception of God can be found in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and a trenchant critique it is. His own conception of God grew out of that critique. Needless to say, Spinoza's God has no concern for humanity or anything else.

The problem with this esoteric (and sometimes apophatic) version of God is that it's so hard to get people interested in it. Why would they care? Theistic personalism seems to have more vitality. — Tom Storm

This is exactly the problem. There is no more comfort to be found in such a God than there is in nature itself as we find it.

Human concepts are the basis of rationality. Positing a purported goodness that is not good according to our understanding of goodness or a purported justice that is not just according to our conception of justice is irrational. Doing this leaves behind the only measures we have. All ratio is lost.

It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.
— Janus

But it works as solution to the problem, and for a philosopher that is all that matters. — goremand

I don't understand why you would think that something that rejects human rationality is a solution to any problem and especially in the context of philosophical thought.

Okay the way you frame it I tend to think the Universe contains time, which means there was no time prior to the existence of the Universe. In other words, if there is anything there is also time because things are necessarily temporal, and if there are no things then there is no time.

You also seem to agree that there are things independent of minds. In which case you would appear to be one the "anybodies" who support mind-independent reality.

So I outline, in first paragraphs of the OP, grounds to entertain the idea of worlds/universes with different rules. By the relational definitions I've given, those worlds (like any other world) do not exist relative to us by definition, but neither do we exist relative to them. — noAxioms

We have no relation to such worlds, but they have some relation to us (if they exist) insofar as we think about them. The MWI is a possible one in QM. It is criticized for being unfalsifiable, but then so are the other interpretations as far as we can tell. How could we ever demonstrate that consciousness collapses the wave function, for example, or that there really are hidden variables?

That's it, in a nutshell. If our human notions of goodness and justice are so far off the mark, from God's point of view, then why call God "really" good or just at all? It's just words, at that point. I think there are ways to "get God off the hook" but this isn't one of them. It's as shameful as a parent whipping a child into the hospital while saying, "But this is just a sign of how much I love you." Yeah, with love like that, who needs hatred? — J

Yes, I agree. But I note that you also said in a response to another poster:

It would be a monstrous lie, cruel hoax, etc, if there were indeed no salvation, no possibility of an afterlife. But I believe there is, and not for nothing is this the central metaphysical tenet of traditional Christian theology. I think that when the Western tradition speaks of a god of love and justice, those words mean just what they mean to any ordinary human being. In order for God to truly deserve being described with those qualities, however, this life cannot be the end of the story. — J

I don't agree with this for two reasons. An all-powerful all-loving all-knowing God could have created paradise to begin with. There is no need to torture his creatures even if the reward (for some?) is eternal happiness thereafter.

The other reason is that no mention of an afterlife is posited for the animals, who also suffer. Given those two issues I would still say that no three-O God cuts the mustard from the POV of humans notions of goodness and justice.

I know there are different conceptions of God than the one that posits the three O's although I'm not sure there are mainstream theologians who hold them. I also know that any theodicy which insists on maintaining the three O's is fatally flawed from the point of view of a human conception of justice and goodness, and I find any position that claims that we can't really understand divine justice and goodness ridiculous and in fact pernicious.

You'll hear apologists saying it's an issue deep and difficult to understand, but I agree with Nietzsche that is merely obfuscation: muddying the waters to make them appear deep. So, I don't need to read into an area I'm not really interested in, given that I find in myself no need to believe in God, and do not find the idea at all plausible from a rational standpoint in any case.

The plain fact that one believes in a personal God is enough to dismiss their arguments about said God. It doesn't even get of the ground as a concept, so the arguments around what the God should or shouldn't do are basically a way of making fun of those types of people. — AmadeusD

If it doesn't "get off the ground" as a concept, then I don't think it's a matter of making fun of them but of pointing out the flaws in the concept and hoping they will be disabused of the idea. You don't educate people by making fun of them.

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists. — Tom Storm

I would agree with you that it is a very human default tendency to rationalize in order to manufacture support for what we want to believe. But isn't the aim of philosophy the truth and isn't rationalization, in whatever area of one's life it is practiced, an impediment to seeing the truth?

Stalinists and ideologues are just as much victims and/or purveyors of blind faith as religionists in my view. On the other hand, atheism is simply lack of belief in a god. When atheists point out the inconsistency between our notions of goodness and justice and the usual conception and the biblical presentation (at least) of God, I don't see that as any kind of rationalization but as reasoned critique.

I'm not familiar with Bentley Hart, so I don't know if I would consider his conception of God to be reasonable, but I would say that any reasonable understanding of what a deity might be would not be such as to offer any comfort to us.

I agree with you regarding the supposed perfection of nature. Nature is a work in progress and is both beautiful and awe-inspiring and terrible and in some ways far from perfect.

The argument given by religious apologists that asks why we should expect nature to be without suffering and judge the notion of God as inconsistent with the suffering we see everywhere fails to take account of the fact that God is presented by religious authorities as all-goo, all-knowing and all-powerful, and also judgmental to the point of casting sinners into eternal damnation.

From the perspective of the human understanding of goodness and justice this is appalling, and the only answer religious apologists have is to say something along the lines of "God moves in mysterious ways". This seems to me a total copout. If God were really what they claim he is, he could have created a perfect world for his creatures where they always already enjoy perfect happiness. He is said to be omniscient and omnipotent after all.

So, it is only that conception of God that I have a problem with, and that I think any reasonable person should have a problem with. The thing is that by and large within the Abrahamic religions it is THE conception.

Doesn't sound plausible given that the God of the bible is anything but kind. What reason do you have for thinking the kindness of animals and humans came from God?

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. You can't really blame them for not appreciating these sophisticated, esoteric alternative accounts of God of interest mainly to a small number of theology-inclined people.

Maybe the actual problem is this massive conceptual gulf between the mainstream sky-daddy and the borderline Lovecraftian "higher being" of the theistic intelligentsia? — goremand

In the sophisticated mainstream theological accounts of God I have encountered, he is still considered to be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful and that conception is simply incompatible with the nature of the world he is believed to have created. So, it is not just the simplistic "sky-daddy" conception of God which is inconsistent with the suffering in the world.

Some theologians may tackle this by removing one or other of the omnis from God's CV in order to achieve some consistency, I don't know if that is so, just surmising. It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.

I do know the Gnostics believed, with far greater consistency than the mainstream theologians, that this world was created by an inferior and deluded deity they called (if I remember right) Yaldobaoth.

↪Janus
Okay, where does kindness come from? — NotAristotle

From fellow feeling, empathy, compassion, love. It can be observed in many other animals, it's not unique to humans. Where do you think it comes from?

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

If existence is but an ideal (described in alternative (1) just above), then yes, the above suggestion would be true. Also, the universe seems to contain time, not be contained by it, so all of it exists equally, meaning the universe is self-observed, period. There's no before/after about it. Yes, the parts prior to the observation are the ones observed. Its the events after the observation that are not observed, so maybe it's those that don't exist under some mind-dependent position.

All that said, this topic is not about if the apple has mind-independent existence, its about what exists besides the stuff observed. If the answer is 'not much', then it sounds pretty observation dependent to me. — noAxioms

What do you mean "the universe is self-observed"? Do you think observation occurs in the absence of observers? You say the universe contains time, which I take to mean that the universe is temporal, so how do you get to "there's no before/ after about it"?

The question boils down to whether "if nothing is observed then nothing exists" is true. If you believe that then would you believe that the fossil record didn't exist until we observed it?

Why is the question not about if the apple has mind-independent existence? If the question is about what exists besides the stuff observed, how could the answer be "not much", given that we observe only the tiniest fraction of the universe? And even if it were "not much" (speaking of the apple now) why should that lead to the conclusion that the apple is observer-dependent? The reason I switched to the Universe from the apple is that if there is much there to be observed which has not been observed then that would entail mind-independent existence, no?

The idea that penetrative sexual assault ought be considered a lesser crime than rape is also a bit specious, but I don't know if you were actually saying that. — fdrake

There is one justification I can think of for considering it to be so, at least when the victim is a woman, given that rape (defined as penile penetration) women may lead to unwanted pregnancy.

This isn't really true if we are talking about the scientific beliefs the average person has. The average person cannot verify or at least has not verified themselves the vast majority of what is the scientific body of knowledge: — Bob Ross

Yes, but they have every reason to believe that the currently accepted canon of scientific knowledge is based on actual observation, experiment and honest and accurate reporting by scientists. That this is so is evidenced by the great advances in technologies we see all around us.

Likewise, religion is not purely faith-based: it is predominantly faith-based for most of the average people out there.

For both, they require mostly evidence for or against trusting the source of knowledge for the claims. — Bob Ross

The source of knowledge for established science is observation and experiment. What is the source of knowledge for religion?

We can rightly trust that the scientists have done the observing and experimenting, and we can rightly trust that the religious authorities have done the reading and studying of the religious texts. The question is as to what is the source contained in the religious texts if not faith in revelation? Would you call that knowledge? Would you say it is based on evidence or logic?

For me, for example, I do think there is good evidence to support homosexuality as a sexual orientation as being bad and practicing it as, subsequently, immoral. — Bob Ross

Really? And what is the good evidence you refer to?

Secondly, homosexuality, traditionally, being immoral has nothing to do with corruption per se: it has to do with a person practicing in alignment with a sexual orientation that is bad; and it is bad because it goes against the nature qua essence of a human. — Bob Ross

Is that your "evidence"? That being homosexual is a bad orientation because it goes against the "nature qua essence of a human"? Are you an expert on human nature and the essence of being human, Bob? You don't think that might be a tad presumptuous?

I think you mean it doesn't appeal to you, and that's fine. It's the next step of universalizing what doesn't appeal to you personally where you go wrong.

It's been sad to watch your thinking going downhill, Bob.

That depends, when you said:
the only coherent notion of goodness we have to work with is the human one
— Janus

did you mean kindness? — NotAristotle

Sure. We are talking about goodness in relation to treatment of others, we are not talking about being good at sports, or art or science or whatever, no?

Do you mean kindness?

Where does what come from?

No, the reality of a suffering world is incompatible with the usual conception of a tri-omni God.

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument. Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

It isn't Evil if it comes from God. Plain and simple. — AmadeusD

If you abandon human notions of goodness, evil and justice, then you can say anything and get away with it. The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God being good, given the suffering in the world is incoherent because the only coherent notion of goodness we have to work with is the human one.

It amounts to a form of willful blindness that allows the God that the believer cannot, for other reasons give up, to be exonerated and thought to be not only good but the source of all good in some incomprehensible way. "God moves in mysterious ways".

To me it seems totally irrational and morally repugnant. And you only have to look at the history of the church to see how this irrational and immoral notion of good predominated and has led to unspeakable human suffering. As if life were not already difficult enough. It's truly a pernicious and disgusting mode of thought!

In considering Plato, we might ask: "In virtue of what are all just acts called 'just' or all round things called 'round?'" If there are facts about which acts are just, or which things are round, etc., in what do these facts consist? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Acts are called just when they seem to the one doing the calling to be fair. There is no necessity that everyone will agree with the assessment of justice. As to roundness, it is a perceptible quality and most people will agree, so no mystery there.

Or is it just Leon collapsing under pressure? While true faith is confirmed under pressure, bad faith is exposed. — Banno

I wondered about that too. Your aphorism seems very apt.

I whine, I rot. — J

Don't we all?

You ask whether anyone really supports (I presume you mean believes in) a mind-independent reality. Do you believe anything existed prior to the advent of minds?

If science is predominantly evidence-based then we have faith in it because we assume that the evidence is valid, has been examined rigorously and the scientific reports accurately based on actual observations. For example, if we learn in chemistry that adding sodium to water leads to an exothermic reaction which may even boil the water, we can do the experiment ourselves. Or for a more mundane example, if we believe there is a city called Paris, but have never been there, we assume that all the photos, and reports are true and that there really is a city called Paris. We know we can go there and check because there are flights to Paris. There is always an element of faith or trust if you prefer that word, but the faith or trust seems to be the most reasonable response.

You haven't attempted to address the claim I made that scriptural testimony is not evidence for anything. Scriptures are stories the truth of which we have no way of determining. And if they claim miracles then we have good reason to doubt them. I've explained what evidence I think there is for science. now it's up to you to explain how scripture could constitute evidence or else admit that it's entirely faith-based. If you fail to address that I'm not going to respond again.

You distort what I say to try to make it look incoherent and then when I point out your error you refuse to acknowledge it and keep repeating the same demands for explanation of something I haven't claimed. You did the same in the other thread where I was not claiming that anything was absolutely unfalsifiable but rather that certain theories and claims seem to be such, given that in our present state of knowledge we cannot imagine what could possibly falsify them. What an irony it is that you accuse me of evading.

Basically, why is God held accountable for making me suffer unjustly if I can be made to suffer justly by nature without God anyway? — Fire Ologist

Without God you are not suffering justly or unjustly. To apply the notion of justice to your suffering in the absence of the presumption of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God would be a category error.

Trying to avoid it is my path. — Tom Storm

Yes, there certainly seems to be no point seeking it...there is plenty to go around.

Okay, then it seems I misunderstood what you said.

As I see it it's very simple. I said science is predominately evidence based and religion is purely faith-based. The first claim at least is uncontroversial, so I don't need to argue for that.

Religion is based on scripture and personal anecdote, and I cannot see how scripture and personal anecdote could constitute reliable evidence for the existence of God, or miracles performed by founders etc. So, if you disagree then you need to provide convincing evidence and argument to support the contention that scripture does provide good evidence for such beliefs.

As far as I am concerned if you cannot do that there is nothing further to be said. And note again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with people having faith where there is no evidence, so I'm not even sure what your beef with what I have been saying is..

:100: :up: :up:

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. has mounted no argument to support the contention that religious beliefs are evidence-based or logic-based, and has, I now believe willfully, distorted the arguments of those who are posing the hard questions, apparently because he has no answer for them. All in all, a very poor showing on his part, demonstrating a total lack of good faith.