The Problem Of Good

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A theist would believe the former.

Probably. However I'm suggesting that this belief is enough to make a deity redundant because the truth can be realized without God.

I prefer this argument to The Problem of Evil because it's a bit less confrontational and lets one avoid the awful thing were atheists have to list off every awful thing in history (to disprove God via Prob of Evil) and then claim that they "believe in humanity".

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, but you used a definition of theism about as far removed from the OPs intent as turkey would have been.

theism
1. a belief in the existence of God or gods.

I have no idea how that definition of theism is like turkey.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's not a "disagreement", it's a contradiction in ideas (that has mostly been resolved by other posters) of one party. That's a paradox.

paradox
1. a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement that is or may be true.

A paradox has nothing to do with “a contradiction in ideas”. The paradox has to be self-contradictory, and true. Like standing is more tiring then walking.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Really, because you seem to be the only person who is having trouble with the concept.

You seem to be the person who has a problem.

Originally posted by King Kandy
...
Lately I see you doing little but posting in threads to try and force people to start acknowledging your definition of God in discussion... but nobody gives a shit about your definition because it's held by only one single (and increasingly pretentious) person, and is completely nonconducive to the discussions we have.

A theist is generally seen as different from simply believing in god, but someone that believes in a personal god. I would define someone that simply believes in some form of impersonal diety as a deist. I mean, we wouldn't call somone that believes in an impersonal prime mover a theist.

Originally posted by Autokrat
A theist is generally seen as different from simply believing in god, but someone that believes in a personal god. I would define someone that simply believes in some form of impersonal diety as a deist.

What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

I would call that person a deist of a pantheistic strain, similar to Spinoza. I personally oppose to calling the universe or nature, god. I would ask, why not simply call it nature? Why call it god?

Originally posted by Autokrat
I would call that person a deist of a pantheistic strain. I personally oppose to calling the universe or nature god since I would ask, why not simply call it nature? Why call it god?

Because the belief is related to a religion. This relationship is best described with the term god. However, some religions don't use the word god, but the relationship is the same. I have read religious writings that go way out of their way to not use the word god, but the meaning is the same.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because the belief is related to a religion. This relationship is best described with the term god. However, some religions don't use the word god, but the relationship is the same. I have read religious writings that go way out of their way to not use the word god, but the meaning is the same.

Except, in a debate, it confuses the issue. If I see a debate relating to the euthyphro dilemma, I'm immediately going to think of Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro and the nature of what is pious. Then, I will transfer that to the modern day monotheistic concerns of the Abrahamic faiths (Divine Command Theory,) because that is what the majority of people would be familiar with and it is what impacts our society the most.

I'm not going to consider deistic pantheism, because deistic pantheism is quite frankly, not a very common belief. Most of the population wouldn't even know what it is. Not only that, but the euthyphro dilemma is specific to a diety that acts in the world as a personal entity.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I've seen theists take both sides of the dilemma or call it a false dilemma and provide a third option.

The existence of an additional option, e.g. the ethical value of an action is subjective, would make the argument a False Dichotomy, but it would not make it a False Dilemma, because any additional option would be just as problematic to the notion of "god."

Originally posted by Autokrat
Except, in a debate, it confuses the issue. If I see a debate relating to the euthyphro dilemma, I'm immediately going to think of Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro and the nature of what is pious. Then, I will transfer that to the modern day monotheistic concerns of the Abrahamic faiths (Divine Command Theory,) because that is what the majority of people would be familiar with and it is what impacts our society the most.

I'm not going to consider deistic pantheism, because deistic pantheism is quite frankly, not a very common belief. Most of the population wouldn't even know what it is. Not only that, but the euthyphro dilemma is specific to a diety that acts in the world as a personal entity.

If this forum was frequented by Christians, then I would agree. This forum is mostly frequented by atheists who only want other atheists to reaffirm there belief. Therefore, the door is wide open to all theists.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

This may have already been suggested (Haven't read the entire thread) but, God being infallible in most Western interpretations of Him, my guess is that most theologians would attest to God's Word being intrinsic Truth. Ergo, if something is "good" by God's decree, it is inherently so. Most mainstream religions reject the idea of moral relativism, and adhere to some sort of supposedly divine dogma, so I doubt they could reconcile a Relatvism with God simply acting as the most powerful opinion on the subject.

Wherefore, then, the need for God? Simple, because it is God's Word and guidance that leads us to these inherent truths. We, as imperfect beings, cannot be expected to make infallible decisions on morality. So the truths are inherent, but God is the compass by which humanity is led to them. God himself can probably be viewed as an inherent truth, the sort of a priori existence that defies logic but fits snugly into faith-based belief.

Variations on this provide equal theistic quandries. A professor friend of mine is fond of asking students if something is good because God says it is, or if God says it is good because it inherently is. Similar structure to the problem. There are, of course, ways around this within a theistic worldview. My explanation above is merely one of them.

I prefer less philosophical challenges to religion. A buddy of mine who is a Jesuit has a way of sucking me into philosophical discussions where I end up having to reconcile some obscure philosophical maxim before I can begin to make my case, whatever it happens to be at the time. I inevitably lose such debates. The suspect nature of the Jesus myth, the literal veracity of the Bible (or lack thereof), and the utter lack of evidence for not just God but paranormal beliefs in general (either in the form of no positive evidence, or evidence against specific paranormal claims), provide much more solid ground upon which to stand in opposition to religion. Imo, at least.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If this forum was frequented by Christians, then I would agree. This forum is mostly frequented by atheists who only want other atheists to reaffirm there belief. Therefore, the door is wide open to all theists.

Bah! We don't need others to affirm our beliefs. We already know we're right.

313

But heck, I was a Christian when I started posting on KMC. Then (briefly) a Buddhist, Taoist, Agnostic, and lastly Atheist. Can I count as all of them? I would still say I don't oppose anything I've read in Taoism (which, admittedly, is hardly thorough, so I can only make this claim provisionally)...it's just needlessly wrapped in mysticism and religious terminology. As a philosophy and worldview that is removed from the idea of religion, I think it holds its own quite well.

Originally posted by Digi
I inevitably lose such debates.

Originally posted by Digi

But heck, I was a Christian when I started posting on KMC. Then (briefly) a Buddhist, Taoist, Agnostic, and lastly Atheist.

It looks like someone is lost and/or easily influenced.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

i don't get it?

are you really just pointing out the Eurocentric nature of the language we have defining people's positions toward god?

Like, seriously, this is 4 pages of you just deconstructing single words, which is not much more than a wank all over the boards

A person who believes in any god is not an Atheist.

"natural god"...what??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A person who believes in any god is not an Atheist.

"natural god"...what??

I agree

however, "natural god" can sometimes refer to what is called "Spinoza's God", which is more like appreciating all things in nature as a God. Many people who could claim to be atheists see some value in this (Dawkins says he believes in Spinoza's God).

However, calling this God, especially in the context of what differentiates atheists and theists is useless. I don't believe a natural "god" to be a "god" at all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It looks like someone is lost and/or easily influenced.

facepalm

The point, it went that way *points* maybe you can hurry and catch it. I had thought that that portion of my post would clearly be seen as the "joking with shakya" portion. The meat of my point comes well before it. Maybe I needed more smilies.

Originally posted by Mindship
I find that hard to believe.

Erm, thanks? But I do. Reducing everything to football analogies, I'm best when my argument are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Brief, to the point, not mincing words or terms. Philosophy mostly just serves to muddy whatever point I'm trying to make, so I don't do well when mired in it.

Originally posted by inimalist
i don't get it?

are you really just pointing out the Eurocentric nature of the language we have defining people's positions toward god?

Like, seriously, this is 4 pages of you just deconstructing single words, which is not much more than a wank all over the boards

From the first post: "In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism."

This is a false statement.

I have shown how a theist can resolve the "problem". I even showed how a Christian would resolve the problem.

The fact you think it is "wank" says to me that my point simply doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas about what a theist is.

theist
one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

This definition does not say anything about what this belief in god or gods is to be like. It also does not exclude beliefs that are in the minority, or even rare.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

Originally posted by Digi
Erm, thanks? But I do. Reducing everything to football analogies, I'm best when my argument are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Brief, to the point, not mincing words or terms. Philosophy mostly just serves to muddy whatever point I'm trying to make, so I don't do well when mired in it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
From the first post: "In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism."

This is a false statement.

I have shown how a theist can resolve the "problem". I even showed how a Christian would resolve the problem.

theist
one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

This definition does not say anything about what this belief in god or gods is to be like. It also does not exclude beliefs that are in the minority, or even rare.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

so yes, you are just doing word deconstruction...

everyone on the board agrees with the subjective interpretation of language, do you just want someone to tell you that, in your own closed logic system where you pick the definitions of things with no respect for the context of the thread, you would be correct?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact you think it is "wank" says to me that my point simply doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas about what a theist is.

I have little opinion as to what a theist is, i think the term is generally void, much like deist or agnostic. However, given the topic of the thread was interesting to me, I was able to overcome the fact that my own personal philosophies of religion might be different than other people's and get over my ego long enough to try and answer the question that was asked, rather than redefine the topic so that everyone is talking about me

Originally posted by inimalist
so yes, you are just doing word deconstruction...

everyone on the board agrees with the subjective interpretation of language, do you just want someone to tell you that, in your own closed logic system where you pick the definitions of things with no respect for the context of the thread, you would be correct?

I have no idea what you are talking about, and to be honest, neither do you.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have little opinion as to what a theist is, i think the term is generally void, much like deist or agnostic. However, given the topic of the thread was interesting to me, I was able to overcome the fact that my own personal philosophies of religion might be different than other people's and get over my ego long enough to try and answer the question that was asked, rather than redefine the topic so that everyone is talking about me

What about the rest of what I said? You simply ignore the real definition for your own inadequate definition.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.