God is strange or are we the weirdos.

[dybmh]

If you say so.

I maintain that you are simply not talking anything that makes sense.

To you. To you it doesn't make sense.

Everyone has their limits. Some people are extra-special in how limited they are.

Knowing one's own limitations and not projecting them on others is a noble aspiration? Don't you think so?

It might even be considered a version of "enlightened".

 

[danieldemol]

It doesn't matter. The bible only claims a creator-god too. And that was presumed in your reply. You presumed the bible's truth in order to blame God.

No I didn't, I presumed a *creator God's* truth in my view, not the truth of the entire bible.

 

[danieldemol]

So, by this reasoning Adolf Hitler’s great grandmother is “at least partly responsible” for the deaths of millions of people. Which is both absurd and untrue.

No, because she had no free choice in the design of Adolf Hitler's brain nor in his environment in my view.

The moment we become self-aware (cognizant of our own cognizance) we gain the ability to override it’s compulsions. And even if we choose no to, it’s still a choice, and not a compulsion.

In this video Alex Occonor points out that our choices are based on wants, and we don't control our wants;

“Flaws” are judgment determinations that we can make because we have free will.

Non-sequitur in my view, we don't have to be free to make judgements if it is in our nature to make them.

 

[PureX]

No, because she had no free choice in the design of Adolf Hitler's brain nor in his environment in my view.

In this video Alex Occonor points out that our choices are based on wants, and we don't control our wants;

Non-sequitur in my view, we don't have to be free to make judgements if it is in our nature to make them.

Alex is a fool. (Also, what is he, 12?) As anyone with eyes can clearly see our "wants" nearly always come in multiples and can wildly contradict each other, forcing us to CHOOSE between and among them, constantly. And often we even end up choosing against our own best interests or desires. Humans are irrational, and that is not because we are "desire-robots". It's because our desires are as irrational and contradictory as we are. They do not control us. They just reflect what we already are.

 

[bobhikes]

God is Strange!

God is omnipotent and omniscient according to common beliefs, yet God allows both evil and pain to exist throughout all life. God has a plan that everyone, everything is a part of and knows how it will all go down yet says we have free will. God forces us to live so that we can prove ourselves in his eyes to gain a blessed eternal life yet knows who will or won't. Our lives range from 1 sec to 118 years. God gives us rules that God is allowed exemptions from. God only communicates through age old scriptures and not to each of us directly. God does not allow himself to be seen or heard directly.

 

[danieldemol]

Alex is a fool. (Also, what is he, 12?)

Intelligence comes in all ages, some people have loads of it from a young age whilst others never develop it even at an advanced age.

As anyone with eyes can clearly see our "wants" nearly always come in multiples and can wildly contradict each other, forcing us to CHOOSE between and among them, constantly. And often we even end up choosing against our own best interests or desires. Humans are irrational, and that is not because we are "desire-robots". It's because our desires are as irrational and contradictory as we are. They do not control us. They just reflect what we already are.

All you are doing when you choose between your wants is prioritising them in my view.

You still do not control what your greatest want is as I see it.

 

[PureX]

Intelligence comes in all ages, some people have loads of it from a young age whilst others never develop it even at an advanced age.

All you are doing when you choose between your wants is prioritising them in my view.

You still do not control what your greatest want is as I see it.

But to "prioritize" them, is to CHOOSE FROM AMONG THEM. And therefor, we do have not only the freedom to choose, but the ability to ignore or circumvent whichever ones we choose to.

We are not controlled by our desires as you seem to want to believe, as we can and we do choose to ignore and reject them.

 

[danieldemol]

But to "prioritize" them, is to CHOOSE FROM AMONG THEM. And therefor, we do have not only the freedom to choose, but the ability to ignore or circumvent whichever ones we choose to.

We are not controlled by our desires as you seem to want to believe, as we can and we do choose to ignore and reject them.

You choose your greatest want because it is your greatest want in my view.

This was addressed in the video (im guessing you didn't watch it) even if you choose against your want (for example for a chocolate icecream) in order to regain what you see as your free-will you are simply wanting to regain what you see as your free-will more than you want chocolate ice-cream.

So it is not really a choice since you dont choose your greatest want. You simply want it more, but what you want most is outside your control as I see it.

Do you decide what your wants are? Did you decide you want to lick up vomit or want to punch your mother in the face recently? My personal view is that our wants are outside our control.

 

[PureX]

You choose your greatest want because it is your greatest want in my view.

We very often choose a lesser want over the greater desire. And sometimes we even reject what we want in favor of what we need.

The more you try to argue this the more foolish your argument becomes.

This was addressed in the video (im guessing you didn't watch it) even if you choose against your want (for example for a chocolate icecream) in order to regain what you see as your free-will you are simply wanting to regain what you see as your free-will more than you want chocolate ice-cream.

So it is not really a choice since you dont choose your greatest want. You simply want it more, but what you want most is outside your control as I see it.

You have pinned yourself to absurd circular reasoning, here. "If you choose it, you must have wanted it, and if you wanted it, you didn't really choose it, it chose you".

Do you decide what your wants are? Did you decide you want to lick up vomit or want to punch your mother in the face recently? My personal view is that our wants are outside our control.

Your personal view is quite wrong.

 

[dybmh]

No I didn't, I presumed a *creator God's* truth in my view, not the truth of the entire bible.

Daniel, I didn't say "entire" either. This is what you said:

My point is: there is a double standard being applied if you start out assuming that the creation story is true, but all the other choices granted in the story are false because it is not demonstrated. The creation story is only claimed too. It is not demonstrated, but yo no problem asssuming it was true when it permitted blaming God.

I am fully aware that you don't believe in free-will. But, that doesn't matter when engaging with the analogy in the OP. If it is taken at face value, it's extremely weird to assume the worst of the "lovely lady". If it is taken as a metaphor and the bible story is overlayed onto it, it's still extremely weird to assume the worst about the obviously beautiful thing that is right in front of a person's face. Naturally anyone who's experience with God ( in fact or in perception ) is not beautiful and lovely would have a different opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Daniel, I didn't say "entire" either. This is what you said:

View attachment 82632

My point is: there is a double standard being applied if you start out assuming that the creation story is true, but all the other choices granted in the story are false because it is not demonstrated. The creation story is only claimed too. It is not demonstrated, but yo no problem asssuming it was true when it permitted blaming God.

I am fully aware that you don't believe in free-will. But, that doesn't matter when engaging with the analogy in the OP. If it is taken at face value, it's extremely weird to assume the worst of the "lovely lady". If it is taken as a metaphor and the bible story is overlayed onto it, it's still extremely weird to assume the worst about the obviously beautiful thing that is right in front of a person's face. Naturally anyone who's experience with God ( in fact or in perception ) is not beautiful and lovely would have a different opinion.

No, I am not assuming the entire creation story is true. I am only assuming that a creator God is true and saying essentially - even if we assume that much(ie a creator God) is true it doesn't absolve God of being a weirdo if we are also weird in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

We very often choose a lesser want over the greater desire.

I doubt this is true

And sometimes we even reject what we want in favor of what we need.

I would argue that is because you want needs to be fulfilled more than you want things that are not needs to be fulfilled.

You have pinned yourself to absurd circular reasoning, here. "If you choose it, you must have wanted it, and if you wanted it, you didn't really choose it, it chose you".

I dont see the circularity here.

Your personal view is quite wrong.

Then demonstrate it. Want to punch your mother in the face (no need to fulfill that want by actually punching her in the face) just want to do it. I know I dont want to punch my mother in the face. I would have to be in an environment (something I have no control over) where I was made to want it eg if my mother where to threaten me with a knife my want to defend myself may lead to me wanting to punch my mother, but absent such an environment I would have to have some defect such as being a psychopath (which again I doubt i would have any control over as I dont recall choosing not to receive the mind of a psychopath).

 

[dybmh]

No, I am not assuming the entire creation story is true. I am only assuming that a creator God is true and saying essentially - even if we assume that much(ie a creator God) is true it doesn't absolve God of being a weirdo if we are also weird in my view.

I didn't say "entire". Why do you keep adding that?

Your argument against free will is: "The bible only claims that [freewill] but doesn't demonstrate it". If that's your argument, then your initial argument about creation is a fail as well. The bible claims creation, but does not demonstrate it. The bible claims that people were ccreated in god's image, but does not demonstrate it.

Therefore, if a claim about god is dismissed due to lack of demonstrable truth, then, the claim about god's weirdness is also dismissed due to lack of deminstrable truth. creation in god's image is not demonstrated. god's absolute perfection and absolute omnipotence is not demonstrated. there's a whole argument that can be made about satanic influence once god's omnipotence is dismissed....

you see how this goes right? once the argument depends on "demonstration" of what's in the bible, then the claim about god's weirdness because we're weird collapses.

To be consistent one would need to have the same conditions for what's assumed to be true. That's the only way to be consistent. If you're happy being inconsistent and having a double standard. That's totally your choice.

 

[danieldemol]

To be consistent one would need to have the same conditions for what's assumed to be true. That's the only way to be consistent.

The OP lays out as its premise that a creator God is true (it didn't mention the Biblical creation story if i recall). I'm saying even if we ignore the fact that it is not demonstrable truth that a creator God exists there are still other non-demonstrable premises such as free-will which have to be assumed for God not to be weird.

The purpose is not to be consistent, the purpose is to expose additional hidden assumptions or otherwise admit that without those hidden additional assumptions the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise given.

If you're happy being inconsistent and having a double standard. That's totally your choice.

Thank you.

 

[dybmh]

The OP lays out as its premise that a creator God is true (it didn't mention the Biblical creation story if i recall).

Here's the OP. I scrolled through the first page a bit, and didn't see it:

---

---

God is strange or are we the weirdos.

Analogy:

Lovely Lady: You want to go on a date?

Skeptic: Yes, but you got to prove you are real!

Lovely Lady: What, I'm right in front of you, you see me don't you?

Skeptic: It can be that you are robot programmed as a human designed to trick me from Aliens.

Lovely Lady: Bye Weird person.

Skeptic: Aha, I knew it, she was a robot. Nice try Aliens!

---

---

Then here's what you said:

If God created us we simply are as per our creation.
So if we are weird then it is (assuming creation to be true) possible we just came from a weird mind so to speak.

So, it seems to me you were assuming creation is true, but it doesn't need to be demonstrated.

I'm saying even if we ignore the fact that it is not demonstrable truth that a creator God exists there are still other non-demonstrable premises such as free-will which have to be assumed for God not to be weird.

Ok, but you are were assuming that "creation" is true lacking demonstrable truth. And then you are denying the other non-demonstrable premises. That's a double standard.

If you are ignoring that creation is non-demonstrable, then to be constistent, the fact that free-will is non-demonstrable should also be ignored.

Otherwise, to be consistent, neither should be ignored. Creation is not assumed. Free-will is not assumed. All there is, is a lovely lady, or some sort of God standing in front of the skeptic and the skeptic assumes the worst about it for no reason. That is extremely weird.

The purpose is not to be consistent, the purpose is to expose additional hidden assumptions or otherwise admit that without those hidden additional assumptions the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise given.

OK, I posted the OP. What are the hidden assumptions? Can you highlight them?

Thank you.

of course!

 

[danieldemol]

Here's the OP. I scrolled through the first page a bit, and didn't see it:

---

---

God is strange or are we the weirdos.

Analogy:

Lovely Lady: You want to go on a date?

Skeptic: Yes, but you got to prove you are real!

Lovely Lady: What, I'm right in front of you, you see me don't you?

Skeptic: It can be that you are robot programmed as a human designed to trick me from Aliens.

Lovely Lady: Bye Weird person.

Skeptic: Aha, I knew it, she was a robot. Nice try Aliens!

---

Ah well if the OP is assuming a non creator type God (then my bad). In that case my only criticism would be that it is not physically visible like the Lady it is being compared to in my view.

 

[Quagmire]

"God" is an incomprehensible ideal.

But we humans are very uncomfortable with the idea of anything being incomprehensible. So much so that we will tend to invent "comprehension" where it doesn't exist just so we can pretend that it does, and avoid the discomfort of our not knowing.

We like to claim we are always in pursuit of the truth. But except for relative factuality, we can't ever really know the truth. And what we should be pursuing is honesty, instead of truth. But to do that we're going to have to face our own profound incomprehension. And we don't want to do that. So we chase after fantasies of truth instead of just trying to be honest.

Does this make us "weird"?

No, it makes us hopelessly mundane.

Reality is weird, which is why most of it is so incomprehensible to us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I think skepticism can definitely go too far. At a certain point it starts to become arrogant.

1. Nothing can be proven outside the mind
2. The only thing that can be proven is inside the mind
3. If it's outside of my mind it cannot be proven
4. If you don't agree with what's in my mind you're automatically wrong
5. My mind is all that matters
6. I am all that exists

That is like our dear friend @mikkel_the_dane, the super-skeptic.
Where is he? Have not seen him lately.

If he was the one creating the world and it's best sides I believe we are the weirdos here. He created the best versions of us. However, our habits changed and got us here.

Even the first ones he created, turned out to be failures. And he had to throw them out of Eden.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But we humans are very uncomfortable with the idea of anything being incomprehensible. So much so that we will tend to invent "comprehension" where it doesn't exist just so we can pretend that it does, and avoid the discomfort of our not knowing.

.. we can't ever really know the truth. And what we should be pursuing is honesty, instead of truth. So we chase after fantasies of truth instead of just trying to be honest. Does this make us "weird"?

That is why we 'invented' God/Gods/Goddesses. So that 'we can pretend that we know, and avoid the discomfort of our not knowing'.
What makes you think so? Not against honesty (believing in God is not honest), but what is wrong with trying to know truth?
Why do you do that? Who compels you to do that? Abandon them. We can live without fantasies. IMHO, it sure does.

If you are ignoring that creation is non-demonstrable, then to be constistent, the fact that free-will is non-demonstrable should also be ignored.
Otherwise, to be consistent, neither should be ignored. Creation is not assumed. Free-will is not assumed.

I always try to be consistent. Creation as well as Free-will may be real and may be illusions. For me, both are illusions. Creation is the image that gets created in our mind because of inherent fluctuations of 'physical energy'. And we create the idea of Free-will to escape the draw-backs in the God-idea.

 

[PureX]

Then demonstrate it.

I have, but you aren't listening to learn. You're just listening to argue.