PDA

View Full Version : God tangents sf. current politics threads



Kevin Bonham
30-04-2013, 11:31 AM
But I might be wrong about what God thinks is right or wrong.

Not only might you be wrong, but even if a God somehow exists, you have no valid way of knowing that you are more likely to be right or wrong. So better to leave "God" out of it and try thinking for yourself.

Oepty
30-04-2013, 11:42 AM
Not only might you be wrong, but even if a God somehow exists, you have no valid way of knowing that you are more likely to be right or wrong. So better to leave "God" out of it and try thinking for yourself.

If God exists, as I believe, then you have a choice of believing what God says, if he says anything, or not believing what he says.
Just like you have the choice of believing someone when they say they love you or not believing them.
I choose to believe God and believe He loves me. If I am wrong I will accept whatever consequences that choice leads to.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2013, 07:08 PM
If God exists, as I believe, then you have a choice of believing what God says, if he says anything, or not believing what he says.

That assumes it is even possible to determine clearly that something that appeared to be said by "God" was actually said by "God" at all.

And also, I don't have a choice to believe anything. I either believe things or I don't.

It's pretty clear from the shoutbox that where you're coming from is a generally negative outlook on life that causes you to believe because you wrongly think that if there isn't a God it is all hopeless and meaningless. I don't believe in God at all, nor in anything similar, and yet I have no trouble enjoying many things in my life and finding personal meaning in them. A psychological inability to derive meaning from life without assuming that God loves you isn't a valid pretext for judging social issues.

antichrist
30-04-2013, 08:17 PM
somewhere in a thread today it was mentioned how God may keep it's existence hidden from us, in that case God could be accused of being a evil god as preventing rational people from making proper decisions. If these is an afterlife we could be sabotaging it due to God playing silly buggers us like a game of chess - or even like 500 playing misere with our afterlives

Oepty
30-04-2013, 10:58 PM
And also, I don't have a choice to believe anything. I either believe things or I don't.


Do you ever make a choice?
Are there ever two options available to you of which you can take either of them? Including decisions you might make during a chess game.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2013, 12:16 AM
Do you ever make a choice?
Are there ever two options available to you of which you can take either of them? Including decisions you might make during a chess game.

They are not decisions about what to believe, they are decisions about what to do. Completely different.

Indeed, chess is a good example of the difference. A position before me may be unclear. For instance, say that I am thinking of sacrificing a piece against a strong opponent. I don't sit there thinking "hmmm, should I decide to believe that the sac works or should I decide to believe it doesn't?" After all it would be very nice for me to believe the sac works and play it and win, but just wanting the sac to work doesn't actually mean it does.

Instead I look at the position and think "what evidence is there as to whether the sac works or not?" And suddenly (if I'm lucky) I see that the sac at least forces a draw and that I would have chances to continue to attack beyond that. Now I didn't choose to believe that was the case, I discovered that it was the case. And having discovered it, I can't decide to unbelieve it, because I know that if my analysis was right then it is true. If my analysis had gone the other way, I couldn't then have chosen to believe the sac worked while knowing full well that it doesn't.

At that point, if I see nothing better, I decide on an action: to play the sacrifice.

The Christian idea of choosing to believe is a lot like sitting at a chessboard and thinking "Gee it would be nice if putting my knight en prise in this position forced mate in seven. Oh, I want it to be true, it would be so sad if it wasn't, so I'll do it!"

That would be a really dumb way to play chess.

It's also a really dumb way to do philosophy!

Oepty
01-05-2013, 07:19 PM
They are not decisions about what to believe, they are decisions about what to do. Completely different.

Indeed, chess is a good example of the difference. A position before me may be unclear. For instance, say that I am thinking of sacrificing a piece against a strong opponent. I don't sit there thinking "hmmm, should I decide to believe that the sac works or should I decide to believe it doesn't?" After all it would be very nice for me to believe the sac works and play it and win, but just wanting the sac to work doesn't actually mean it does.

Instead I look at the position and think "what evidence is there as to whether the sac works or not?" And suddenly (if I'm lucky) I see that the sac at least forces a draw and that I would have chances to continue to attack beyond that. Now I didn't choose to believe that was the case, I discovered that it was the case. And having discovered it, I can't decide to unbelieve it, because I know that if my analysis was right then it is true. If my analysis had gone the other way, I couldn't then have chosen to believe the sac worked while knowing full well that it doesn't.

At that point, if I see nothing better, I decide on an action: to play the sacrifice.

The Christian idea of choosing to believe is a lot like sitting at a chessboard and thinking "Gee it would be nice if putting my knight en prise in this position forced mate in seven. Oh, I want it to be true, it would be so sad if it wasn't, so I'll do it!"

That would be a really dumb way to play chess.

It's also a really dumb way to do philosophy!

I am not sure I agree with the first line of the post, really tired, need to sleep on it.
However if you can make the divide you have then the rest of the post seems to follow.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2013, 07:32 PM
I am not sure I agree with the first line of the post, really tired, need to sleep on it.

You may as well be not sure you agree that 2+2=4.

If you really think humans can choose their own beliefs, here is a challenge for you: try to make yourself believe, even for one hour, that 2+2=637.

Then bear in mind that from my standpoint conceptions of the Christian God are even more far-fetched than that equation (if that's possible) and you might see that it is very unlikely I could choose to believe them.

You might also realise at this point that all the rubbish about various conceptions of God punishing people who do not "choose" to believe is ridiculous and that any religious view that espouses it does not deserve to be respected or taken seriously.

Oepty
01-05-2013, 08:29 PM
You may as well be not sure you agree that 2+2=4.

If you really think humans can choose their own beliefs, here is a challenge for you: try to make yourself believe, even for one hour, that 2+2=637.

Then bear in mind that from my standpoint conceptions of the Christian God are even more far-fetched than that equation (if that's possible) and you might see that it is very unlikely I could choose to believe them.

You might also realise at this point that all the rubbish about various conceptions of God punishing people who do not "choose" to believe is ridiculous and that any religious view that espouses it does not deserve to be respected or taken seriously.

Now this post is just totally ridiculous, I am not sure why I am even bothering to answer. If you are not going to give me time to think about things then I am not sure why you bother posting. Surely you actually want me to think.

Adamski
01-05-2013, 08:35 PM
If God exists, as I believe, then you have a choice of believing what God says, if he says anything, or not believing what he says.
Just like you have the choice of believing someone when they say they love you or not believing them.
I choose to believe God and believe He loves me. If I am wrong I will accept whatever consequences that choice leads to.
Bravo oepto! Amen bro!

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2013, 08:38 PM
Now this post is just totally ridiculous, I am not sure why I am even bothering to answer.

You say it is ridiculous but provide inadequate evidence. That's ridiculous!


If you are not going to give me time to think about things then I am not sure why you bother posting. Surely you actually want me to think.

Up to you whether you think or not. My interest is simply in refuting what I disagree with so that no one is fooled into thinking it is valid for lack of seeing the other side of that point.

In this case that includes the idea that the truth of my comment was anything but bleeding obvious. But my reply in no way prevents you from thinking about anything, and to assert that it does is ... ridiculous!

Oepty
01-05-2013, 08:50 PM
You say it is ridiculous but provide inadequate evidence. That's ridiculous!



Up to you whether you think or not. My interest is simply in refuting what I disagree with so that no one is fooled into thinking it is valid for lack of seeing the other side of that point.

In this case that includes the idea that the truth of my comment was anything but bleeding obvious. But my reply in no way prevents you from thinking about anything, and to assert that it does is ... ridiculous!

Sorry for being so stupid

antichrist
02-05-2013, 12:49 AM
Sorry for being so stupid

whereas I only act it - h ha

antichrist
22-06-2013, 02:47 PM
Sorry for being so stupid
KB does not suffer fools lightly. And no beg your pardons

Goughfather
22-06-2013, 04:47 PM
You say it is ridiculous but provide inadequate evidence. That's ridiculous!

The term "evidence" as used in this context is somewhat problematic, since it seems what you are really accusing Oepty of is failing to establish his argument with suitably sustainable premises, which is not what I'd consider to be evidentiary material.

Of course, on that basis it may equally be said that you provide "inadequate evidence" when you assert that God punishing people who do not 'choose' is ridiculous and hence that this statement in and of itself is ridiculous. Of course, you have reasons for believing what you believe just as Oepty has reasons for believing what he believes, which makes neither post ridiculous, just poorly fleshed out.

What is ridiculous is the expectation that arguments over these fora are going to fully fleshed out and fully comprehensible to that who operate under a different conceptual framework. And no, I'm not going to explain my thinking on this any further.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2013, 05:08 PM
The term "evidence" as used in this context is somewhat problematic, since it seems what you are really accusing Oepty of is failing to establish his argument with suitably sustainable premises, which is not what I'd consider to be evidentiary material.

Of course, on that basis it may equally be said that you provide "inadequate evidence" when you assert that God punishing people who do not 'choose' is ridiculous and hence that this statement in and of itself is ridiculous.

It may be equally said but only by someone implacably determined to make themselves look silly.

At the point where I made the comment you quote, the situation was that I had explained and substantiated my position at some length over a couple of posts, and then Oepty jumped in calling the second post "ridiculous". He provided absolutely no evidence or argument (at that stage) that my post deserved any criticism. Indeed it seemed his biggest objection to my post was not actually anything to do with its content but simply that I had posted again so quickly.

Later the issues in question were discussed by us at far greater length on this thread:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=14681


Of course, you have reasons for believing what you believe just as Oepty has reasons for believing what he believes, which makes neither post ridiculous, just poorly fleshed out.

Why are you even trying to equate the two? Oepty's case was not "poorly fleshed out"; it was not fleshed out at all. That was the basis of my objection to his comment. When making accusations people should explain where they are coming from so that the basis for their view can be addressed.