Eviora
-
Posts
862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Reborn Development Blog
Rejuvenation Development Blog
Desolation Dev Blog
Everything posted by Eviora
-
Whether this is the right place for it or not, I'm definitely not the only one here arguing about beliefs. I would guess that Hilda would agree that she has been willingly participating in these arguments - in fact, she has asked me to prove things several times, and I have offered arguments in in favor of a particular position of mine - namely, the belief that no "maximally great" gods exist. This does involve both of our PoVs. I wouldn't call my questions "trapped". They're earnest questions. I've been doing my best to do my position justice without being rude during this discussion, and if I have failed at that, I apologize.
-
1. Questions do not translate to statements. I may imply that in the future, but I haven't done it yet. 2. Have you followed our whole discussion? Because the problem I've been running into is precisely the lack of an argument with justified premises with which to be challenged. It's pretty easy to think up a nice god I can't disprove who I would be happy to follow, but I'd prefer to find out what's true. It seems awfully silly to go through all this arguing if we're just going to throw logic out the window at the end. 3. I'm not trying to deconstruct Hilda's argument, I'm trying to get her to present one for why I should believe in any gods at all, or her specific god, or something like that, in the first place. 4. If you're unsure what someone is trying to say, it's politer to ask them what they mean than to assume the worst and state it as fact.
-
No, that is decidedly not what my rebuttal says, and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
-
If that were the rebuttal, I would be extremely likely to disagree, and would add a follow-up question: Why is free will more important than the eternal salvation of a multitude of people?
-
But I don't have faith in any gods, and it's unlikely that any will suddenly develop of its own accord. Therefore, logic failing, all I'm left with is guesswork when I'm trying to figure out which god(s), if any, are real. I would think a maximally great god would give me more to work with than this if he really wants me to figure out the truth.
-
My capacity to even know what I'm choosing is a big part of the issue. How am I supposed to know which religion is the correct one? That seem like a substantial portion of the difficulty to me. I've had plenty of arguments of this sort, and I was raised Catholic, yet I haven't encountered anyone who could convince me that one religion was any more accurate than the other. As I illustrated with my game show example, the task of making an educated choice is all but impossible without some sort of clear guidance, guidance beyond the sort that every religion tries to offer. How exactly is choosing any more than guesswork?
-
Well, if god is going to require our absolute faith and commitment to him in order to avoid damnation despite the fact that he doesn't give us any unambiguous means by which to determine which god(s), if any, are real, I'm guessing that he's failing spectacularly at saving most people. You'd think a maximally great being would set us more realistic goals - I mean, he created us knowing how flawed we'd be, right? It's not my fault I'm a human - I didn't choose to exist. That's squarely on him.
-
Yeahhh... as far as the whole "infinite maximal greatness" thing goes, the whole point of infinity is that there is no threshold. Mathematical mind-blow time! There are, in fact, infinitely many degrees of infinity that can be ordered in terms of greatness, and this fact isn't even all that hard to prove, though it does require knowledge of set theory and a few more advanced concepts. I won't go into further detail because that seems very off topic. I'm surprised to see you say you think god is "expanding" though - I'm not exactly sure what that would entail! Do you think god has a physical form? This doesn't seem to me like it fits in with the "maximally great" argument you presented. I find it strange that you say you'd safely assume your child wouldn't make the same mistake twice because, in the extrapolation of the example to religion, it's pretty clear that humans tend to do things you'd call "sinning" many times, so that assumption sounds more like the opposite of safe. If anyone is being damned, then it's empirically evident that the situation is inadequate because god's own desire not to see anyone be damned is not being met. I don't see why I'd have to show the capacity to choose is a flaw in order to assert that an omnipotent god could do a thing (in this case, save us), but the very fact that the way he constructed the universe results in his goals not being met would indicate that something is off. I don't think it's necessarily the choice thing, though. It's probably got more to do with the rigidity of the requirement(s) to not be damned and the fallacious assumption that not knowing god equates to not wanting to know god.
-
@ Hilda I didn't actually post the argument that belief isn't a choice above. I specifically didn't want to show you can choose not to believe given insurmountable evidence because I don't think that's true - I think you either believe or you don't. That's why I insist gave an example where you can choose not to act on the evidence. (You can, however, choose to outright dismiss a claim without considering it.) Generally, it seems like people can't just say, "I believe X" and actually start believing it. If I asked you to believe you're a vampire for a while I don't think you could pull it off, no matter how much you contemplated being a vampire. That's just my empirical understanding of how belief works. However, belief being a choice would actually strengthen my argument that free will is not breached by a god who presents insurmountable evidence. As far as starting my sentences with "I don't believe X" goes, I'm generally referring to the premises of your argument. I'm not saying your argument is necessarily moot because I don't believe the premises. It's just that an argument made based on false premises may not apply to reality even if it is internally perfectly logical. For instance, any premise that references "maximally great" requires its own justification because there may be no maximum to the greatness that is possible. By pointing out that your premises are unsupported I'm hoping to get you to support them and, ultimately, get to the bottom of this discussion. However, if you only take them on faith based on personal experience, they aren't really going to be conveyable to anyone else. In response to the whole topic of damnation, let me ask you this: if you had (have?) children, would you let them put their hands into a fire because they found it pretty? If god is omniscient, then our understanding of the world must seem very childish indeed to him, and if he wants no one to be damned, then he should certainly be capable of exercising his better judgment to protect us from our own bad choices, or, at the very least, he should let us change our minds even after we've been damned. There's really no need for this rigid system of damning people forever. @Flux The argument you're making is basically Pascal's Wager, which can be shown to be flawed in a multitude of ways. Let me provide you with one: Since I cannot prove the non-existence of a god who damns people who believe in god(s) and sends atheists to Heaven, I cannot dismiss the possibility that being an atheist is the only way to be saved. That means my only hope may be to not believe in god. I'll also note that Pascal's Wager makes no argue in favor of the existence of any gods; it just provides a (bad) strategy for getting divine rewards if god(s) exist.
-
The trouble is, as you mentioned earlier, the burden of proof is, indeed, on the one making the claim. It sounds like you're saying you can't prove the legitimacy of Christianity on any grounds upon which I can relate to you, and no one else seems to be able to either. Your bullet point list doesn't do a whole lot for me because most of the points on it are contingent on the accuracy of Christianity, and I don't believe Christianity is necessarily accurate. That sales pitch seems all too similar to the ones other religions use from my vantage point. Plus, even if Christianity is the only well established religion that offers the things you mentioned, there could be some obscure god no one worships who does better. It's pretty easy for me to imagine a god who's closer to my perception of all loving than the one you advocate for. So where does that leave me? It's not that I don't look for truth - this very discussion is about trying to determine what's true. It's possible that I'll some day I'll find a system of belief that is convincing to me, but it may not be Christianity. What then? Eternal damnation for guessing incorrectly? To be honest, that sounds like the work of a monster to me, not an even remotely benevolent entity. A "maximally great" god knows what it would take to convince me (omniscience), can provide that proof (omnipotent), and has the incentive to do so (omnibenevolence). You may not be able to convince me, but a maximally great god should be able to do better. Since that has not happened, I actively disbelieve in a "maximally great" god - this is one of many arguments against the existence of one. As an anticipatory note, I'll remark that this has nothing to do with free will. Being shown insurmountable evidence of a thing doesn't prevent one from not believing in that thing. I don't believe belief itself is a choice, but you can think of this in terms of an exam in school - if a voice from on high whispers all the answers into your ear, that doesn't mean you have to write them all on the paper. Writing them remains a choice.
-
Well, being rational and relational aren't mutually exclusive. However, when presented with the idea of a supernatural being, I generally will engage the subject using logic because I lack an intimate relationship with that being. You may argue that I actually do have such a relationship whether I know it or not, but that actually doesn't matter - because I don't believe I have the relationship, I use logic. Sidequest! In one of your above posts you were talking about the idea that people who don't believe in your particular god are choosing to be separate from him for all eternity. I couldn't disagree more, and let me explain why. Suppose, for a moment, you were a contestant on a game show. You're shown two boxes, and told that one of them contains a check for a million dollars and the other contains a nest of wasps. The two boxes are distinguishable, but nothing about them suggests which contains which item. If you could choose between the prizes, you would obviously take the money, right? But the reality is you can't tell. You may end up with the wasps just because of a bad guess. But that doesn't mean you wanted to be stung! Now, let's translate this game to the process of choosing a religion. Suddenly, the two boxes are replaced with thousands (established religions), plus there are uncountably many more invisible boxes in the forms of gods no one believes in. The only way to win could be to choose none of them, or exactly one of them, or some specific group of them. Without some sort of unambiguous guidance, there's no way you win this game. That's the position many of us are in. I speak for myself when I say I don't want to suffer for eternity, but that doesn't mean I'll make the right choice. You may say all the evidence of your god is there if only I would look, but I have looked - and just about every religion says that! The simple fact of the matter is that one can try to read into one's life for its entire duration and never come an inch closer to the right answer. I'm certainly not omniscient - and whatever god would probably know that. So if that god needs me to believe and truly wants what's best for me, he/she/they'll give me more than vague hints and ancient texts, and certainly won't do things that shatter the hand best suited to reach for the relationship you mention. One such hand is logic. And that is why a god of the type you describe would choose not to require us to go beyond human logic.
-
Well, empirically, as a race we find that logic usually works when applied correctly. If you think about what logic is, it's really just about consistency, right? So your out here is that god can be inconsistent. But would that really be fair of him? He wants us to believe in him, right? If he does, wouldn't it be awfully silly of him to then smash into pieces the methods of understanding that have been so reliable for us in all other matters? It seems to me like that would undermine his goals - I mean, it's certainly enough to make me dismiss the whole endeavor, because it feels like I'm guessing what to believe at random!
-
Well, if we're talking about beings that are "beyond human logic", nothing that any of us - you included - has to say is relevant. May as well believe whatever in that circumstance. I'm definitely not convinced that any such beings exist. =p This seems like too convenient an excuse to throw away distasteful arguments.
-
Basically, I'm a weak atheist, which means I don't believe in any gods, but I'm also not convinced that no gods exist. That's why I don't argue that there is no god. I would argue that there are no "maximally great" beings, but I suspect that would just devolve into arguing about what "benevolence" is, and I can't say I'm terribly interested in that.
-
To clarify, I'm not claiming your premises are false, I'm saying I'm not convinced they're true. I haven't particularly tried to argue in favor of either conclusion, I'm just poking at other people's arguments. =p
-
The trouble is, I disagree that the non-trivial statements you made are true statements. I don't believe a maximally great being exists at all. I also disagree that a god necessarily must be what you call "maximally great". Can you prove your premises?
-
I could claim that a maximally great being must have a greater mass than anything else. Except in a very particular context, "great" is a fairly vague word. I don't know what "maximally great" means at all. Further, both of those arguments stuff all the non-trivial facts into the premises and then just use rudimentary logic in the conclusions.
-
That would be circular reasoning, in which case neither thing is actually defined. Generally, even if there exists some god, I see no reason to view their opinion of morality as "objective". I'd view it as merely the opinion of a powerful being. Without some sort of extra reasoning, it's special pleading to call one being's view of right and wrong objective.
-
Contrary to popular belief, it's definitely possible to prove some negatives. This is easiest to see when you think from a mathematical perspective. I can quite effortlessly prove there are no integers that are both even and odd. That example may seem obvious, but there are many more mathematical proofs that things don't exist that are far less obvious. However, if you try to prove or disprove anything supernatural, you're going to have a very hard time. Most words in the English language are simply vague enough that there's room for ambiguity. If I accept the possibility that something supernatural exists, that something could be anything from a just god to a demon posing as a just god who is feeding is lies to watch us hurt each other. The second I take such things into consideration, almost any conception of a god cannot be disproven, but neither can it be proven. The whole endeavor basically leads to a dead end.
-
I don't believe in any gods because I see no reason to believe in them. I also like to point out that, even if you believe that there must be a god for the universe to exist, that god could be wildly different from any god that is the focus of a major world religion.
-
I got INFJ,... the only letter that was at all borderline was the F vs T.
-
Minor one. It annoys me when people say, "I could care less," when they mean the opposite.
-
Replace capitalism with... a tamed version of capitalism. Much higher taxes on the very rich and all that. Place extremely strict limitations on those who try to use any form of threats/bribery to influence politics and similar things. Of course, the above is very vague and there would certainly be a lot of loopholes to work through. There's also a lot of insidious conditioning that goes on, at least in the US. We'll need to get to the point where so many people view being a "non-capitalist" as something to be looked down on.
-
Wow, there's so much I can relate to in that post - in my case, I wanted to die before I reached 25. That didn't happen. It would be nice to say I'm glad for that, but the truth is that I still think about death at the drop of a hat, the second things start to look bad. Nonetheless, I've decided not to die, at least for now. I'm in the process of transitioning, so hopefully, I will soon be able to start actually living. Before I ran into Reborn, I had heard of a number of hacks, both for Pokemon and for other games, mostly through watching Let's Plays on Youtube. I never even considered downloading any of them, though.I can be quite paranoid, so I was working off the assumption that I was bound to get a virus or something if I did. Reborn was the first - and, so far, only - one that actually compelled me to try it for myself, not because of the gameplay - in fact, that just scared me more - but because of the story. I couldn't really tell you why; something in it just connected with me. I'm glad I took that risk, 'cause Reborn is a great game, much more to my liking than even the Pokemon games Nintendo produces these days. I've never been very good at being open about my emotions, so I'll get right to the point. Thanks for making this game, Ame, and imparting your experiences into it. It meant a lot to me. It may not be finished yet, but you've still probably had a wider positive impact on people in your 23 years than most people do in their entire lives. Happy birthday (albeit belatedly)!
-
Why? Also, let's note that two individuals who have equal economic standings are not "the same". I also never suggested that everyone should be equally wealthy. What I do suggest, however, is that there's no reason an individual needs to own hundreds of millions of dollars. It's quite cynical to put a person's "right" to be rich beyond their wildest dreams above the need of many to eat, have a decent place to live, etc. As for the whole gun thing, it's a bit silly to suggest people with firearms could overcome our military and the WMDs it has at its disposal. Our country is already so corrupt that elected officials put their own ambitions about the needs of their constituents, and no one even bats an eye at it because it is simply expected - instilling blind respect for authority in a people is quite the insidious weapon. However, I wasn't talking about firearms - I was talking about our military budget.
