If there were a just God

[spidergoat]

Suppose we were talking about Albert Einstein or president Obama. How would you propose that one investigate their personal likes and dislikes?

Rather, suppose we are talking about Einstein's theories. How do we evaluate their worth? We see that the theory makes predictions which can be tested. A correct test validates the theory. An incorrect test invalidates it. But there is no such standard in religion. Even if the test produces arbitrary results, religion has an answer to that. So it makes no predictions, nothing that can be tested, so in that case there can be no standard of evaluation. So the theory was invalid in the first place.

How does one distinguish between error and non-error?

Kind of like searching for the president by searching your local vicinity. Eventually, as you scoured the earth's surface, you would come to the state of washington. Provided you had good information about the role of who and what the president is, you could meet with success.

Provided I had a description that could fit any person or situation, I would see the president everywhere. That's what you are saying.

For instance experts in the field of eating chocolate cakes agree that having a cake his intrinsic to the practice while having a knife is merely instrumental to the act of serving it. (so having a knife is not essential to the act of eating cake in all times, places and circumstances).

But a God that exists is not intrinsic to the practice of worshipping God or Gods. We know this because many religions existed with various dieties, and people practiced them anyway. It's not like you need a God to actually exist in order to pray. I'm trying to find out how one determines who in religion is an authority, and how one distinguishes a real prophet from a fake one. For instance, the placebo effect does not validate the efficacy of a sugar pill in treating a serious disease like cancer. So, the application of religion can have beneficial effects quite apart from the validity of the basic tenets of the religion itself. How does one determine the validity of the basic tenets of a religion?

 

[lightgigantic]

Rather, suppose we are talking about Einstein's theories. How do we evaluate their worth? We see that the theory makes predictions which can be tested. A correct test validates the theory. An incorrect test invalidates it. But there is no such standard in religion. Even if the test produces arbitrary results, religion has an answer to that. So it makes no predictions, nothing that can be tested, so in that case there can be no standard of evaluation. So the theory was invalid in the first place.


How does one distinguish between error and non-error?

This is a good question that can also be answered however you asked how can one know what god wants. Do you want to pursue that question or move onto the different one you're now posing?

Provided I had a description that could fit any person or situation, I would see the president everywhere. That's what you are saying.

Not really since it would be difficult to place all citizens in the position of the number one political authority of a nation.

But a God that exists is not intrinsic to the practice of worshipping God or Gods.

That depends how you break down the term "worship".
(IOW you can find discourses by saintly persons that regard some aspects as essential and some aspects as superfluous)

We know this because many religions existed with various dieties, and people practiced them anyway. It's not like you need a God to actually exist in order to pray.

Sure

Hence commentators describe such acts as imitative,

I'm trying to find out how one determines who in religion is an authority, and how one distinguishes a real prophet from a fake one. For instance, the placebo effect does not validate the efficacy of a sugar pill in treating a serious disease like cancer. So, the application of religion can have beneficial effects quite apart from the validity of the basic tenets of the religion itself. How does one determine the validity of the basic tenets of a religion?

It would probably be difficult to explain the answer to this unless one has a clear understanding of the "disease" of material existence. IOW unless one can see the "problem" of cancer, there's no scope for gauging any beneficial results from medical applications.

 

[spidergoat]

This is a good question that can also be answered however you asked how can one know what god wants. Do you want to pursue that question or move onto the different one you're now posing?

It's the same question, how does one distinguish between non-error (what God wants), and error (what God doesn't want) in religion?

How does one determine if a sacred text is in error, since it was written by men?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's the same question, how does one distinguish between non-error (what God wants), and error (what God doesn't want) in religion?

How does one determine if a sacred text is in error, since it was written by men?

well suppose we take this quote

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy,"

How can we determine whether it is correct or an error to suggest it was stated by Benjamin Franklin?

 

[wynn]

Part of that unpacking would involve looking at an example of knowledge that is understood in full that one acquires previously and independently from the context it appears in.

Personally I don't think its possible to provide such an example .. at least for any sort of knowledge that is credited as advanced or sublime.

Sure, and as far as worldly knowledge and actions go, it doesn't really matter if we make mistakes, because we can either correct them or come up with some reconciling attitude toward them.


But when it comes to God, things are completely different. If we don't have the proper knowledge and actions in matters of God, we may go to hell for all eternity. At least this is what so many theists are telling us.

How do we deal with this? This threat of eternal damnation says that when it comes to matters of God, we cannot afford to make mistakes, nor that we really have the time and opportunity to test the claims of theists.

How to deal with this?

You once commented on this prospect of eternal damnation that you simply prefer to think of God as a magnanimous personality, and hence rejected the fire-and-brimstone image of God (and with it Christianity, Islam and whichever other religion may promote such an image of God).

Frankly, I think this is taking things very lightly. "I don't like that image of God, so I'll go for one I like more".
I am not saying this simply to criticize you. It is just that your choice of which God to worship, your choice of religion seems to be based on some common sense preferences that you seem to value above anything so many other theists say. I find this baffling.

Did you, at some point, or perhaps still do, consider that you may be risking eternal damnation by not accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?
That you may be risking eternal damnation by worshipping a god that so many other theists claim to be a mere idol, a human fantasy?
Do you consider this risk?


Myself, I have nightmares and panic attacks about not accepting Jesus.

 

[wynn]

well suppose we take this quote

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy,"

How can we determine whether it is correct or an error to suggest it was stated by Benjamin Franklin?

You seem to think the same principle by which mundane claims are discerned is the same as the one by which divine claims are discerned.

I do not see how this is justified.

Being wrong about Benjamin Franklin is not said to earn you eternal damnation. Being wrong about God is.


Your whole approach to theistic discussion seems to be based on the assumptions that God is a magnanimous personality; that knowledge of God is acquired gradually and that in the process of this, there is allowance for mistakes, imperfections and the correction of them; that there are karma and reincarnation and with them numerous lifetimes in which souls can try to "get it right".

Many other theists do not think so. What do we do with that, especially since they put forward the threat of eternal damnation?

 

[wynn]

How does one distinguish between error and non-error?

Taking things in good faith, relying that no mistakes are fatal (and therefore not feeling paralyzed by the prospect of making a mistake, and therefore being more confident and proactive) make no sense anymore once the threat of eternal damnation is made.

 

[earth]

Taking things in good faith, relying that no mistakes are fatal make no sense anymore once the threat of eternal damnation is made.

It is an empty baseless threat lacking any evidence and make no sense. And that threat is supporting religion's inexcusable insult and mental abuse directed toward humankind.

 

[lightgigantic]

You seem to think the same principle by which mundane claims are discerned is the same as the one by which divine claims are discerned.

I do not see how this is justified.

Being wrong about Benjamin Franklin is not said to earn you eternal damnation. Being wrong about God is.

My point is not so much about the merit of what is being analyzed but merely the issue of analysis. IOW its an examination of how we determine what piece of information comes from which person and whether that information is reliable or not.

Your whole approach to theistic discussion seems to be based on the assumptions that God is a magnanimous personality; that knowledge of God is acquired gradually and that in the process of this, there is allowance for mistakes, imperfections and the correction of them; that there are karma and reincarnation and with them numerous lifetimes in which souls can try to "get it right".

what is the need for god to be a cretin who declares you are either a hero or a zero?

Many other theists do not think so. What do we do with that, especially since they put forward the threat of eternal damnation?

Just because people can say anything about about anything doesn't make anything everything

 

[spidergoat]

well suppose we take this quote

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy,"

How can we determine whether it is correct or an error to suggest it was stated by Benjamin Franklin?

We may have anecdotal evidence, or a text that he had printed. But it tells us nothing about whethere there is a God or not. My point is that any religious "truth" is just the opinion of the speaker, unless some other means of verification is involved.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure, and as far as worldly knowledge and actions go, it doesn't really matter if we make mistakes, because we can either correct them or come up with some reconciling attitude toward them.


But when it comes to God, things are completely different. If we don't have the proper knowledge and actions in matters of God, we may go to hell for all eternity. At least this is what so many theists are telling us.

How do we deal with this? This threat of eternal damnation says that when it comes to matters of God, we cannot afford to make mistakes, nor that we really have the time and opportunity to test the claims of theists.

How to deal with this?

You once commented on this prospect of eternal damnation that you simply prefer to think of God as a magnanimous personality, and hence rejected the fire-and-brimstone image of God (and with it Christianity, Islam and whichever other religion may promote such an image of God).

Frankly, I think this is taking things very lightly. "I don't like that image of God, so I'll go for one I like more".
I am not saying this simply to criticize you. It is just that your choice of which God to worship, your choice of religion seems to be based on some common sense preferences that you seem to value above anything so many other theists say. I find this baffling.

Did you, at some point, or perhaps still do, consider that you may be risking eternal damnation by not accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?
That you may be risking eternal damnation by worshipping a god that so many other theists claim to be a mere idol, a human fantasy?
Do you consider this risk?


Myself, I have nightmares and panic attacks about not accepting Jesus.

If cannot afford to make any mistakes we are screwed from the onset.

If even a mundane person is capable of bearing a completely dreadful child and yet be their well wisher (or at the very least, refrain from subjecting them to an eternity of pain and anguish), what is it exactly that we possess that makes us grander than god?

 

[lightgigantic]

We may have anecdotal evidence, or a text that he had printed.

why would we hold a text that he had printed (or more likely, a text someone else has written about him) as authoritative?

But it tells us nothing about whethere there is a God or not.

If you can accept texts and the professionals who represent them as sufficient to determine whether or not Benjamin Franklin made a statement, its not clear what's your problem.

Actually you cannot even begin to discuss anything about Benjamin Franklin unless you reference some text.

My point is that any religious "truth" is just the opinion of the speaker, unless some other means of verification is involved.

Not all opinions are the same.
IOW, as the case with Benjamin Franklin illustrates, some opinions tend to be better than others.

 

[spidergoat]

Having a text only shows that he probably said it. It says nothing about the essential truth of the statement. Just like a sacred text only shows that someone probably said something, not whether it's true or not.

 

[wynn]

My point is not so much about the merit of what is being analyzed but merely the issue of analysis. IOW its an examination of how we determine what piece of information comes from which person and whether that information is reliable or not.

And you think these issues of analysis apply to information about the divine as well, not only to mundane matters?

what is the need for god to be a cretin who declares you are either a hero or a zero?

I wouldn't know ...
I just don't understand how so many people can portray God as if he were an insane old moloch, and then say that it is just our idle human sensitivities which see something negative in that image ... and then torture and even kill those people who refuse to subscribe to such an image of God.

Just because people can say anything about about anything doesn't make anything everything

Not, it does not. But why do people spread such a ghastly image of God, and commit so much violence in the name of that image?
And how come I have such a problem with this?

 

[wynn]

Having a text only shows that he probably said it. It says nothing about the essential truth of the statement. Just like a sacred text only shows that someone probably said something, not whether it's true or not.

How do you think that the truth of a statement is ascertained?

 

[spidergoat]

That's what I'm asking. The method in science is well documented.

 

[wynn]

If cannot afford to make any mistakes we are screwed from the onset.

If even a mundane person is capable of bearing a completely dreadful child and yet be their well wisher (or at the very least, refrain from subjecting them to an eternity of pain and anguish), what is it exactly that we possess that makes us grander than god?

Whatever it is, the fire-and-brimstoners say it's simply a human frailty, not greatness ... they defend this on the account that God's morality is different than man's morality - "just because man may consider something to be immoral, it doesn't mean God does so too".


Anyway, I thought about what the notion of eternal damnation entails (at least for me), and what it is that therefore makes it so hard to accept it as good and right:

1. "It is love to torture your children for all eternity."
2. "There are crimes which, once committed, are impossible to make amends for or change one's course of action after them. Neither God nor the soul have it in their nature, will or ability to work past certain crimes."
3. "The soul is potentially inherently flawed, so flawed that nothing and nobody can or wants to do anything about it."
4. "God is flawed for creating potentially inherently flawed beings."
5. "If souls are parts and parcels of God, & #4., then God is also flawed."
6. "If souls can suffer forever, and they are parts and parcels of God, then God also suffers forever."
7. "God is happy while some of his parts and parcels suffer for all eternity."
8. "God both suffers and is happy for all eternity."
9. "By their nature, their default, souls are separated from God. Their being with God comes only by their choice."
10. "The nature of souls is inherently and irrepairably corruptible."
11. "God is a pawn of his laws."
12. "God's laws are those of an angsty teenager."
13. "Acting in fear and panic is better than acting in hope."
14. "The Vedas are wrong."

Sounds like a report from the insane asylum ... and yet ...

 

[wynn]

That's what I'm asking. The method in science is well documented.

? Science does not deal with truths, only with theories.

 

[spidergoat]

? Science does not deal with truths, only with theories.

Religion either, apparently.

 

[wynn]

Religion either, apparently.

Just to be clear: Do you agree that science does not deal with truth, nor is science (as we know it in the West) a tool for ascertaining truth?