Is God good? Is God loving?

[viole]

"No problem" in that it is providential, yes. But as I said with permission He also attaches blame to it, so that is the sense in which a problem exists.

Why? Is He blaming us for what He planned to do? Or for doing His will? What sense does that make?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

That's not the proper definition for anything 'contingent' in modal logic though, be it a being or whatever. But you are free to use whatever definitions you prefer.

Lol. Who is talking about a definition in modal logic? These are philosophical terms. Modal or formal logic is only used in coming up with determinations. Maybe it is your way of making up definitions, but I have only used standard formal definitions in the study of philosophy. So dont blurt things out like "you can use whatever definition you prefer". Anyway, at the beginning of this conversation I told you that people dont have the humility to discuss these subjects well.

Please. Do a bit of reading. because obviously you dont have the temperament to ask and learn. You can read up on your own. You were talking about the Stanford encyclopaedia right? Read in that. You will find plenty of entries about the subject which you refuse to read up on.

IN the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, there would be a section about physicalism and you would definitely find some information.

I will not respond further, and you can use some ad hominem to conclude this.

Cheers.

 

[Lain]

Why? Is He blaming us for what He planned to do? Or for doing His will? What sense does that make?

Ciao

- viole

For freely departing from His will. Perhaps it is better to not say blame, it is more like if you choose not to drink water then you'll dehydrate. Likewise if you choose to depart from life, and thereby "tend to non-being," (your good begins going out of existence) then you'll be damned. In my opinion of course.

 

[Koldo]

I wasn't.

Did you start to think like this all by yourself?

Here is my perspective: Your ideas on what constitutes good and evil are so far off from what regular human beings would call good and evil that I can only think of three possibilities to explain this.

1) You were to think like this from an early. This is why you think like this to this day.
2) You underwent some sort of trauma and were taught to think like this to cope.
3) You have some sort of mental illness that majorly affects how you perceive evil and good, which explains why you have a completely distinct understanding of good and evil than the rest of us.

Did I happen to get it right? You don't need to mention any specifics.

Conservatives and progressives disagree on many cases about what are the specifics of morality. Not to mention people from other countries and cultures. But, there really is a limit as to how far the disagreement goes. Your stance is completely distinct. It goes even further than moral relativism and nihilism.

 

[viole]

reely departing from His will. Perhaps it is better to not say blame, it is more like if you choose not to drink water then you'll dehydrate. Likewise if you choose to depart from life, and thereby "tend to non-being," (your good begins going out of existence) then you'll be damned. In my opinion of course.

I cannot possibly deviate from His will. As a God, expectations are that His will be done. Or do you think I have the power to derail them?
So, If I choose not to drink water, and I die because of that, how is that not God's providence?

With all due respect, I believe you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. Which is what should be expected by any theist with above average acumen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

Did you start to think like this all by yourself?

Here is my perspective: Your ideas on what constitutes good and evil are so far off from what regular human beings would call good and evil that I can only think of three possibilities to explain this.

1) You were to think like this from an early. This is why you think like this to this day.
2) You underwent some sort of trauma and were taught to think like this to cope.
3) You have some sort of mental illness that majorly affects how you perceive evil and good, which explains why you have a completely distinct understanding of good and evil than the rest of us.

Did I happen to get it right? You don't need to mention any specifics.

Conservatives and progressives disagree on many cases about what are the specifics of morality. Not to mention people from other countries and cultures. But, there really is a limit as to how far the disagreement goes. Your stance is completely distinct. It goes even further than moral relativism and nihilism.

I was not taught any theology on good and evil from early in my life, or taught it by anyone at all because I chose to be taught around 17 years old. I have had no trauma in life related to this. The only mental illness I have is autism spectrum disorder (most do not consider it to be a mental illness but I see that as being patronizing and trying to shed a good light on an issue so that parents feel better about themselves).

My stance is "distinct" because I study, debate, and try to find true answers to what I perceive to be "questions and problems that matter." When I learn I am wrong I move to the better position, and will continue to do so until I die, for all should willingly seek truth. This is how I came to my ideas.

I really don't see my position as distinct, it's really the Wal-Mart version of more intelligent and righteous men (like Job, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Athanasius, to name a few), and represents the infancy of my knowledge. My position will probably change, but this conversation is helping me learn.

 

[Lain]

I cannot possibly deviate from His will. As a God, expectations are that His will be done. Or do you think I have the power to derail them?
So, If I choose not to drink water, and I die because of that, how is that not God's providence?

With all due respect, I believe you are experience a cognitive dissonance. Which is what should be expected by any theist with above average acumen.

Ciao

- viole

Deviate as in, you choose to not will what He wills as He wants you to will it, not that you can escape His Providence, but rather a breaking of synergy.

It's like the difference between willingly going on a walk to talk with someone or being dragged along and talked at by them. Either way you'll get to the place they want you to be in (eternity), you will either get their in a way you will enjoy because you willed with, or a way you will not enjoy because you willed against. This in my opinion is what that means.

I appreciate that you respect me, I respect you also.

 

[Koldo]

Lol. Who is talking about a definition in modal logic? These are philosophical terms. Modal or formal logic is only used in coming up with determinations. Maybe it is your way of making up definitions, but I have only used standard formal definitions in the study of philosophy. So dont blurt things out like "you can use whatever definition you prefer". Anyway, at the beginning of this conversation I told you that people dont have the humility to discuss these subjects well.

Please. Do a bit of reading. because obviously you dont have the temperament to ask and learn. You can read up on your own. You were talking about the Stanford encyclopaedia right? Read in that. You will find plenty of entries about the subject which you refuse to read up on.

IN the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, there would be a section about physicalism and you would definitely find some information.

I will not respond further, and you can use some ad hominem to conclude this.

Cheers.

Terms such as 'necessary' and 'contingent' are terms used in modal logic.
The cosmological argument that makes use of those terms is the MODAL cosmological argument. It was given this name because it relates to modal logic. If you wish to talk no further, I am already glad that I have taught you something.

 

[firedragon]

Terms such as 'necessary' and 'contingent' are terms used in modal logic.
The cosmological argument that makes use of those terms is the MODAL cosmological argument. It was given this name because it relates to modal logic. If you wish to talk no further, I am already glad that I have taught you something.

Do some research.

 

[Koldo]

I was not taught any theology on good and evil from early in my life, or taught it by anyone at all because I chose to be taught around 17 years old. I have had no trauma in life related to this. The only mental illness I have is autism spectrum disorder (most do not consider it to be a mental illness but I see that as being patronizing and trying to shed a good light on an issue so that parents feel better about themselves).

My stance is "distinct" because I study, debate, and try to find true answers to what I perceive to be "questions and problems that matter." When I learn I am wrong I move to the better position, and will continue to do so until I die, for all should willingly seek truth. This is how I came to my ideas.

I really don't see my position as distinct, it's really the Wal-Mart version of more intelligent and righteous men (like Job, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Athanasius, to name a few), and represents the infancy of my knowledge. My position will probably change, but this conversation is helping me learn.

But you don't need to study or debate to feel that raping a child is evil. You just feel it. Don't you?

 

[Koldo]

Do some research.

Please do heed your own advice.

 

[viole]

Deviate as in, you choose to not will what He wills as He wants you to will it, not that you can escape His Providence, but rather a breaking of synergy.

Now you are climbing mirrors, as they say in Rome. Bottom line is very simple: free will or not, I cannot possibly surprise God, or derail His plan. Whatever I do, like killing the first child I see, is part of His providence, as you admitted a few posts ago.

It's like the difference between willingly going on a walk to talk with someone or being dragged along and talked at by them. Either way you'll get to the place they want you to be in (eternity), you will either get their in a way you will enjoy because you willed with, or a way you will not enjoy because you willed against. This in my opinion is what that means.

Yes, but how does that square with your previous claim that me killing the first child I see, is still God's providence? And why do I have to go to hell, since what I did was not evil (there is no evil), and was just part of God's providence?

Will Judah go to Hell? Or will he not, by simply doing what he was supposed to do, according to God's master plan? Can you have a situation in which Judah will go to Heaven, but Jesus will simply escape execution on account of the lack of traitors, and could not therefore have started that belief of yours, including all the goodies it claims to have produced?

appreciate that you respect me, I respect you also.

I respect everyone I post to. If I did not, I would not waste my time to tip more than one letter to them. However, that respect will include some honesty/brutality sometimes. I do not, in principle, sugar coat what I think with people who I consider intelligent adults. And I expect the same treatment from them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

But you don't need to study or debate to feel that raping a child is evil. You just feel it. Don't you?

Of course. What needs to be studied is (1) why do we generally feel it? (2) what does it mean for it to be evil? (3) what counts as the act, how is that discerned? and so on. At least in my opinion. For the answer given by some is "God put it in our nature" and all the attendant worldviews, the answer by others has to do with evolution, some synthesize those, and some have an entirely different view. Does it not matter which explanation is true, or even if moral statements can be true (as some contend they can not be)?

 

[Koldo]

Of course. What needs to be studied is (1) why do we generally feel it? (2) what does it mean for it to be evil? (3) what counts as the act, how is that discerned? and so on. At least in my opinion. For the answer given by some is "God put it in our nature" and all the attendant worldviews, the answer by others has to do with evolution, some synthesize those, and some have an entirely different view. Does it not matter which explanation is true, or even if moral statements can be true (as some contend they can not be)?

Surely it does, just as long as one doesn't become so self-absorbed with it that your rationale destroys your moral compass. When you say that you think of good and evil on terms of existence you have destroyed your moral compass, or at least keeps ignoring it.

 

[setarcos]

nd why do I have to go to hell, since what I did was not evil (there is no evil), and was just part of God's providence?

Curious. Why do you say there is no evil? How do you define this evil you say does not exist?

 

[setarcos]

When you say that you think of good and evil on terms of existence you have destroyed your moral compass, or at least keeps ignoring it.

I'm late to this party I know but could you explain how these terms of existence destroy your moral compass?

 

[viole]

Curious. Why do you say there is no evil? How do you define this evil you say does not exist?

I am an ethical non cognitivist. And a philosophical naturalist. For me good/evil are like good/bad in food tasting. Biological properties, basically.

So, my claim is related to a discussion with some other members in the forum, who might believe in metaphysical good and evil. Therefore, my suggestion is to get a grasp of the history of the thread, and its contexts, before jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

Please do heed your own advice.

Educate yourself on these things. And try to be humble in your approach. If you dont know something, just ask. You dont have to pretend to know everything. No problem, next post also in order to prove to yourself that you are superior you can use some ad hominem to satisfy yourself.

But understand something. The phrases I used are not just Contingent and Necessary. I said "Contingent Being" and "Necessary Being". The first post you responded to I have explained it in a nutshell. But since you are here to prove you are right, you won't accept it. So I asked you to do your own research.

Modal logic is used to come to conclusions, as reasonable as can be. So is formal logic. That is not philosophy. In philosophy Contingent beings and Necessary beings have certain definitions. In Modal logic, just because the word necessary is used, no one would say that is all modal logic. Unless that person is absolutely uneducated in logic. The word necessary is used in novels, that does not mean it is only in novels. Also, the phrase is not one word, necessary. It is two words which I said several times but you want to ignore it. It is "necessary being". Two words.

This is a whole trail of thought in philosophy. And they have specific definitions, and many systems developed by people like Kripke, and many many others. Even an entrant in philosophy knows this. Any sophomore. So if you search for something simple like "contingent being" you will come across many philosophical papers on it, and how modal logic is applied for logical explanations of contingent existence.

Something like "contingent beings" existed in philosophy since time immemorial and much recently people like Prior developed his logical systems around it. So if you see this word in a modal logic case like Priors modal logic, that does not mean the whole concept of contingent beings is only within modal logic. Way back in the 10th, 11th centuries people like al juwaini and Avicenna discussed contingency arguments and theories. Then you get Christian philosophers like Plantinga who were making a lot of thinking on the same topic. In Philosophy there is a whole stream of thought on essentialism. If you read up, you will learn something about it.

So thanks for engaging. As always, as with many, I expect one more characteristic post as response with a small insult or an ad hominem. Have a good day.

 

[setarcos]

I cannot possibly deviate from His will. As a God, expectations are that His will be done.

You have to use context I believe. Gods desires are that humans generally align with what is the best action to take overall FOR MANKIND not for God. No you cannot deviate from Gods will. However the will of God must be contextually different from the will of man. Gods will sustains all things. Even your desire to deviate from what God has deemed is good action for humans to take. Your action then gives definition to Gods will. How can God after all deem what is good for man if man could never deviate from that good? Some were made for the day of destruction so says scripture. I think many theists do not understand what it means to be God.

 

[setarcos]

For me good/evil are like good/bad in food tasting. Biological properties, basically.

Ahh, I see. Well I agree somewhat. What is good and what is evil is generally relegated to each ones capacity to fulfill a particular outcome I think. Labels of actions and results of those actions. However, that something HAS been labeled testifies to the fact of that somethings existence as labeled does it not? Since those labels are given to actions that have the potential for fulfillment in reality and have been fulfilled at times definitionally.