Point made, point taken. However, you're conflating egoism with, my best guess, freedom!

Is the OOO (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent) god consistent?

External/Internal Inconsistencies:

1. All 3 attributes, together, are incompatible with (the problem of) evil. The Riddle of Epicurus.

2. Omniscience is at odds with free will (connected to 1).

3. Omnipotence is self-contradictory (the stone paradox).

Theists claim God exists, but they make it a point to state that God's immaterial/nonphysical.
— Agent Smith

An excerpt on Tillich's negative theology:


Tillich came to make the paradoxical statement that God does not exist, for which he has been accused of atheism. "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

That statement is a continuation of Tillich’s earlier conclusion that God cannot be conceived as an object, no matter how lofty. We cannot think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite. Thus we must think of God as beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself. There is a clear logic in Tillich’s development here, and he makes it plain that denying God’s “existence” is in fact needed in order to affirm him. Still, at times he makes it hard to avoid the impression that there simply “is” no God, which is largely due to his use of the notion of existence. Again, the apologetic nature of Tillich’s discourse should be remembered. The purpose of such statements is to forcibly remove incorrect notions from the minds of his audience by creating a state of shock..
— New World Encyclopedia

This was also made explicit by John Scotus Eriugena:

things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be exist, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature” (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to be exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be exist. He is “nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam). ...This mode (of thinking) illustrates Eriugena’s original way of dissolving the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.
— John Scotus Eriugena

The point being that according to today's empiricist philosophy only that which can be conceived of as existing in time and space is considered real. There's no conceptual category for the transcendent, and no way of conceptualising it or reaching it through discursive philosophy.

See also God does not exist. — Wayfarer

Alexius Meinong's (vide Meinong's Jungle) thoughts echo John Scotus Eriguena's. Mind twins separated by nearly a thousand or so years! Do such instances of multiple discovery (same idea but different people living in different times) have any bearing on reincarnation (Buddhism/Hinduism) [memories of past lives]?

:ok:

reversible vasectomy — jorndoe

:fire:

Anything and everything seems to be, well, dual purpose, ethically that is: a bullet can both kill and save a person. You have to be imaginative/creative to see that. I wish there was an international treaty that says all weapons used in warfare must be for good (for instance, if you shoot someone, do it in such a way that you save that person's life or thereabouts).

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities?

A more interesting question is, is this world, as Leibniz believed, the best of all possible worlds? A scientific proof of that would look like this: Given carbon-based life like ours, the other parameters of our universe that make life and goodness possible are such that they also permit death and evil. The question can be reformulated for dystheism also.

If consciousness can't be simulated, then we're not living in a simulation.
— RogueAI
... or we're 'delusional zombies' – eliminationists – living in a simulation. — 180 Proof

Zombies, supposedly, lack an inner life; they're unconscious as it were. Does that mean, from a Freudian & Jungian perspective (the unconscious), we're, contrary to our beliefs, NOT self-aware or we're only partially self-aware?

Speaking for myself, all the times I've been rejected (100% of the time), there's always been a very good reason for the rejection. I don't know whether to :smile: (good thinking) or :sad: (I'm defective)!

The solution to the abortion issue is a simple one: Contraceptives (birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, etc.) and sex education (coitus interruptus, abstinence, avoiding premarital sex, etc,) Provisions for accidental pregnancies (contraceptives are not a 100% effective & rape) have to be made (a few licensed clinics should be allowed to operate. It's a win-win!

Yep, the what it is like (to be a bat)? (qualia, 1^st person point of view) "drops out of consideration as irrelevant" (Private Language Argument).

However, what I said above doesn't imply that there's no, as you put it, jnside to consciousness; it's just that we can't discuss it among ourselves in a meaningful way (beetle-in-a-box gedanken experiment).

It's nihilism, pure and simple. Nothing has any real meaning. — Wayfarer

How true! If this world is a simulation, it would indeed be meaningless, given meaning is inseparably tied to the real. Nihilistic delusions (check out Wikipedia) are, on the whole, simply denials of the realness/authenticity of lived experience; Cotard's delusion (I don't exist) being an extremum, when one considers the fact that as per Descartes, cogito ergo sum.

The simulation argument is different in that a necessary condition for reality being a simulation is that consciousness can be simulated/is a product of computation. If consciousness can't be simulated, then we're not living in a simulation — RogueAI

@Michael

:up: Deduction! Magnifique mon ami.

Can consciousness be simulated? What's the difference between God (a creator deity) and a programmer of a simulation world?

Is God a mathematician programmer? — Mario Livio

Relatable! Gracias!

So ... "it's Wabbit season again, is it?" :smirk: — 180 Proof

What's up doc? :grin:

So what? — javi2541997

:chin:

Please "logically" demonstrate that evolution entails a "Cosmic Mind" (whatever that is). :eyes: — 180 Proof

Sorry for butting in 180 Proof, but I couldn't resist - the temptation was too much to resist.

You're, for certain, aware of the Duck Test.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck! :grin:

From what premises? — Michael

I dunno! Metaphysics time?

Yeah, that makes sense, but until we've done the calculations and have some hard figures to prove/suggest that is the case, I'm afraid simulations are still in the game.

Indeed, you're on target. We have to experience both - reality & illusion - to be able to tell the two apart. However, this is an empirical claim (experience being crucial to the issue). What about the rationalist position? Shouldn't we be able to deduce the difference?



Visit Wikipedia entry on private language, scroll down to the statement on how (paraphrasing) pain collapses the appearance/reality distinction. The takeaway seems to be that languages are unable to penetrate the inner sanctum, pain taken as representative, of consciousness. Can a coder/programmer code for private experiences like the ones Wittgenstein talks about in his well-known private language argumen? Perhaps our inner private lives are linguistically inaccessible because the creator of the simulation, if we are in one, wanted to, well, hide something in there from us. You see two heads are better than one, more the merrier, but in this case, no number of heads can solve the riddle of consciousness.

And you agreed with this, why? Was Christianity not part of the golden age of the West? — whollyrolling

I dunno, it just seems odd to call a time when genocide was the norm a "golden age".

value judgement — ArmChairPhilosopher

:up:

180 Proof already alluded to that point! Merci nevertheless.

Therefore, I can't claim to have any privileged knowledge of the presumed Programmer — Gnomon

Tanquam ex ungue leonem (We recognize the lion by his claw). — Johann Bernoulli (said of Isaac Newton after Newton sent him a solution for the brachiostochrone problem)

Insofar as "God" is undefined, this perennial question is incoherent. — 180 Proof

:fire:

God as undefined. You mean like how Rober M. Pirsig writes a 418 page novel titled Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on quality but never really defines it anywhere in the book? We must, it appears, on occasion, beat around the bush.

Quell your melodrama pls — Changeling

I can't help it.

Possible answers to questions like "does God exist?"

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
3a. Unknown because of limitations in methodology and information
3b. Unknowable i.e. neither is there a method nor will omniscience help in determining the truth. Interesting, oui?

The unknown can be effectively tackled if we mathematize possibility as probability.

To Gloomy Guses like me, this is a recipe for disaster, an accident waiting to happen, a tragedy in the making. Reminds me of The Titanic. It's a huge risk; I wonder what the insurance scheme for this space hotel looks like.

The bold never grow old;
They die when they try!

:grin:

:ok:

The first is usually the worst. Laugh away therefore. It is ludicrous!

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. — Laozi

Planes were called Iron Birds! You take it from here!

You are right that Buddhism uses animals as symbolism in their metaphors. Even the elephant is a cult animal in India.
Inside Christianity it is often used the phrase lambs of God. The metaphor is related to the followers of the average priest representing the Christian values. Nevertheless, I see it as an insult because it seems to be a relation to follow some standards without questioning the circumstances — javi2541997

Point made, point taken. One must take into account the general milieu into which religions are born. The Abrahamic religions, to my knowledge, weren't founded in the best of circumstances (those were violent times - genocide was just another day at the office if you know what I mean). It shows.

On the other hand, Buddhism was possibly part of the golden age of Indian civilization.

In other words, it would be unfair to compare Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

Not doubt a PhD from 'Deepak Chopra University'. :sparkle:
9h — 180 Proof

:rofl:

Deepak Chopra is, charitably speaking, onto something!

This, to me, is much ado about nothing! :grin:

Well, I was looking at from an animal's point of view. Buddhism is decidely animal-friendly, while the Abrahamic Triad is distinctly not - Christianity, to my reckoning, is the best among the three insofar as animal welfare is concerned, but not in the best of the best kinda way, in the best of the worst sense.

There are two orders we can put all religions into:

1. Chronological order: Someone well-versed in theology should be able to help. The best I can do is as follows:

? $\to$ Judaism $\to$ Buddhism $\to$ Christianity $\to$ Islam $\to$ ?

2. Logical order: There's got to be a sense of progression, I'm using ethics as the yardstick. In that case, religions can be ordered thus:

? $\to$ Islam $\to$ Judaism $\to$ Christianity $\to$ Buddhism $\to$ ?

The sequences above are almost mirror images. We're, truth be told, regressing, morally speaking.

Again, as I've pointed out, my (second order) argument addresses "theism" (i.e. the prosecutor's case) and not "God" (i.e. the defendant) ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

:ok:

The Buddhist notion of "desire" is to be understood as a shackle/fetter/chain; something that imprisons an individual in what it calls samsara (one poster mentions eternal recurrence), an endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth. If liberation/moksha/nirvana is your goal, you can immediately see that "desire", more accurately clinging/craving, is your enemy no. 1; think of a bird with one foot tied to something - it may wish to fly away, but it simply can't. The rope around the bird's foot is probably what negative desire is in Eastern philosophy.

What's positive desire?

Any and all forms of want that contributes to enlightenment, sensu lato.

Yes, there are three. As I've pointed out (if you'd read my text for comprehension rather than scoring points), "not true" includes "false" and therefore excludes "undecidable". — 180 Proof

For the record, I'm not trying to score points. Sorry if that's the impression you get. Must be my lack of linguistic proficiency. I hope you'll let that slide.

Coming to our disagreement, I recall you showing me how God can be disproven: via entailments of God's predicates (re the riddle of Epicurus) that turn out to be false (modus tollens).I'm with you as regards that. God exists is false

However, there's another category of proofs that have the following form:

1. Premises
Ergo,
2. Conclusion: God exists

Such arguments, all of 'em, have been refuted, but do take note of the fact that this doesn't imply the conclusion (God exists) is false. Not guilty doesn't imply innocence or something like that.

"Not true" includes false and does not denote 'no truth-value' or 'truth-value undetermined'; thus, "not true" is a truth-value. Specifically with respect to theism, I use "not true" to indicate both false theistic claims and incoherent – not even false – theistic claims/concepts. — 180 Proof

I thought there were 3 possibilities with respect to a proposition:

1. True.
2. False.
3. Unknown/Unknowable (undecidable with existing data and/or methods).

If you can determine that "C is not true", then it is not "undecidable". And whether or not "God exists", as I've pointed out, is not the question I'm interested in. — 180 Proof

I don't think you're correct; perhaps we're using different definitions for "undecidable". In my book, if a proposition p is undecidable it means we can't prove either that p is true or that p is false.

If C is not true, it doesn't automatically make it false i.e. C's truth value is unknown or, more importantly, unknowable aka undecidable given the extent of our knowledge at present.

No. If one believes T is [truth-value] because one is "ignorant" of T, then that would be an argument from ignorance. However, to believe T is not true because the T-claims are not demonstrated to be true (or more likely true than not true) is an argument from an unmet burden of proof (such as e.g. a jury verdict of "not guilty" or "not proven") which is valid. — 180 Proof

:ok:

What if I successfully refute the argument for a claim C. That means C is not true as the argument is flawed. However, I can't say that C is false, can I? If I do, that would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

What I'm driving at is that C is neither true nor false, it is undecidable given what we know at the moment. Substitute "God exists" for C and you'll know what I'm trying to convey.

[T]he question is whether theism is true or not true (and N O T "whether or not (which g/G?!) exists")?
— 180 Proof
:fire:
In a sense, true, atheism is invalid because ... (theists can't prove God; "thus" God doesn't exist).
— Agent Smith

In no sense is that "true". Theism consists of positive extraordinary claims and thereby a theist bears the burden of proving that such claims are true. Failing to meet that burden, however, it is reasonable to conclude that theism, its claims, are not true and therefore is unwarranted, or unbelieveable – negative atheism (i.e. 'one does not believe the unproven claims about a deity are true') — 180 Proof

Isn't that (underlined bit of your post) argumentum ad ignorantiam?

Remember to distinguish between

1. Default truth value of a proposition: Unknown true/false.

and

2. The principle of bivalence: a proposition is either true or false.