(October 7, 2014 at 11:39 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Some of you seem to feel that I must, in defending my position, demonstrate that theism can counter nihilism. I feel no such obligation. Although I do believe certain theological positions can and do provide a basis for value that atheism lacks, whether that is indeed the case or not has no bearing on the OP question or any of the arguments I have presented. Perhaps both the logical extension of both theism and atheism is nihilism.

I don't think nihilism is the logical extension of either atheism or theism. It is the logical extension of too much navel-gazing metaphysical thought--- odd since the conclusion appears to be that the thinker loses confidence in the existence of said navel.

(October 7, 2014 at 11:39 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Some of you seem to feel that I must, in defending my position, demonstrate that theism can counter nihilism. I feel no such obligation. Although I do believe certain theological positions can and do provide a basis for value that atheism lacks, whether that is indeed the case or not has no bearing on the OP question or any of the arguments I have presented. Perhaps both the logical extension of both theism and atheism is nihilism.

So, the logical extension of two opposing positions is the same? That's illogical.

Your obligation comes from the fact that "Only theism can lead to non-nihilism" is a corollary for "Atheism leads to nihilism". If you prove one, it means you've proven the other. And it is your obligation to prove your claims.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(October 5, 2014 at 10:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

Only if you define justice as what god does and a very ugly justice that would be.

If its thoroughly just it doesn't matter what we think of it.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 1:26 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God didn't create good no. Good is what God has to be to be a creative singularity. What opposes good opposes God. And what is unjust etc, contradicts Gods nature. Hence we can know something of God.

I don't think that follows. What is it that is inherently good about a creator?

Good as in functional. That's the root meaning of good.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If its thoroughly just it doesn't matter what we think of it.

Except, it is thoroughly just only in your thoughts.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Good as in functional. That's the root meaning of good.

So, basically, when you say your god is good, you mean your god is functional? Irrespective of what that function is?

(October 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Only if you define justice as what god does and a very ugly justice that would be.

If its thoroughly just it doesn't matter what we think of it.

Unless justice is defined as whatever god does (which is subjective at least on god's part) my point is that the Christian god does not appear just by any standard we apply to humans.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I don't think that follows. What is it that is inherently good about a creator?

Good as in functional. That's the root meaning of good.

The Natzi gas chambers were functional, but they weren't good at least not in any moral sense of the word.

If god isn't good as in, "that which is morally right" but merely as, "having the qualities required for a particular role" i.e. that of creator, then I see no difference between the proposed goodness of god and the big bang.

{Definitions quoted from https://www.google.com/search?q=good+def...channel=sb}

(October 7, 2014 at 1:17 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, the logical extension of two opposing positions is the same? That's illogical. ... "Only theism can lead to non-nihilism" is a corollary for "Atheism leads to nihilism". If you prove one, it means you've proven the other.

Not always. If I say that being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom that doesn't mean that having liberty necessarily does.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection….what you wrote actually supports what I'm saying: if something cannot be broken down into component processes, but is only present when all the processes are extant, and yet it is more than the sum of those processes, you have an emergent property. It is not "something out of nothing";…

Replace “god-did-it” with “emergent-property-did-it” and you can see that the proposed technical sounding mechanism only supplies a promissory note for a future solution that may or may not come.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:36 pm)genkaus Wrote: … The idea of emergent property is that it cannot be broken down or applied to smaller parts. Meaning, brain as a whole can be the interpreter without being broken down into smaller ones.

I still don’t see from where you think the content of all the loops and swirls of a computational model come. In themselves the loops and swirls don’t have content.

(October 7, 2014 at 10:48 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(October 7, 2014 at 7:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think our position (Christians and other theists) is reasoned where atheisms is sensed. The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process. Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base. Intrinsically inferior. So of course, a moral system encompassing justice trumps a moral system based upon injustice.

Interesting. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that:

1) Reality or our perception of it is flawed (which? both?);
2) Therefore any reasoning based upon that imperfect reality is flawed;
3) Atheists only have access to reality, therefore any moral reasoning by atheists is flawed

and

1) god is perfectly just
2) reasoning to determine what god's justice is, is not necessarily flawed because it god's justice exists.

So I'm supposing for a minute that this just god exists and therefore so does a kind of platonic ideal justice. The problem is that even if that is the case, humans clearly have an extraordinarily flawed understanding of what god or his justice really is. So:

1) Any reasoning based upon a flawed perception is inherently flawed;
2) God is the definition of justice;
3) And Christians have a limited and flawed perception of god and his justice;
4) Christians reason based upon their flawed perception of god;
5) Christians have a flawed moral system.

Which would explain the numerous contradictory theist views, both between sects and over time, on the nature of god and justice.

I would go a step further because I see no evidence of this god entity.

1) The ancients understanding of reality was considerably more flawed than our own flawed understanding;
2) Theists have a tradition about reality including a god figure which evolved out of ancient man's attempts to explain those parts of reality he found inexplicable.
3) Theists now allow the ancients flawed tradition about reality to be a greater authority than actual perception or scientific advances when determining what reality is;
4) Thus though the perception of all men about reality is flawed, theists perception is more flawed than atheists;

Thus the morals of the religious extremists tend to be stuck somewhere between 500 BC and 300 AD.

You're adding in a few illogical caveats. IMO you're confusing what is very simple.

Reality is flawed.
Reasoning from it is limited by those flaws.
Hence the atheist position

God is perfectly just
Reasoning from God reasons a just reality.

Human flaws exist. We are only capable of perfect justice given our inclusion of God. If we fail, then yes, it doesn't work. No problem there. This is what we deal with.

"Christian" not acting as if God were just are exactly the same as atheists. You're not disproving Christianity by saying that people failing at Christianity define it. They don't.

Mainstream Christianity as I practice and accept it encompasses many interpretations that the church body accepts as valid. Some interpretations are judged to be flawed, like Mormonism, and are not accepted.

Evidence of God isn't in question. Only belief is.

The ancients view of reality has zero to do with this subject.
Humans worked out what God was. Science had nothing to do with that, and has made zero advancements in it.
Theists observe a functional belief system.
Flawed thinking by atheists and theists is flawed thinking.
Atheism is limited to a flawed reality. Theism isn't limited to that flawed reality, but humans can and do fail as they are flawed.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not always. If I say that being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom that doesn't mean that having liberty necessarily does.

"Being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom".
"Having liberty does necessarily lead to boredom".

These two statements are not corollaries.

The corollary to
"Having liberty does necessarily lead to boredom".
would be
"Only imprisonment may not lead to boredom".

The corollary to
"Being imprisoned does not necessarily lead to boredom".
would be
"Being free does not necessarily lead to excitement".

The statement
"Only theism can lead to non-nihilism"
is a corollary for
"Atheism leads to nihilism".

(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Replace “god-did-it” with “emergent-property-did-it” and you can see that the proposed technical sounding mechanism only supplies a promissory note for a future solution that may or may not come.

Actually, it is a solution now, not a promissory note for future solution. Emergent properties, unlike your god, can be and are examined right now.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I still don’t see from where you think the content of all the loops and swirls of a computational model come. In themselves the loops and swirls don’t have content.

It comes from the combined functionality of those loops and swirls. Your inability to get it is not an argument against emergence.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:36 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(October 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If its thoroughly just it doesn't matter what we think of it.

Unless justice is defined as whatever god does (which is subjective at least on god's part) my point is that the Christian god does not appear just by any standard we apply to humans.

The Christian God is only ever described in the bible as acting justly.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

---

(October 7, 2014 at 10:48 am)Jenny A Wrote: Interesting. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that:

1) Reality or our perception of it is flawed (which? both?);
2) Therefore any reasoning based upon that imperfect reality is flawed;
3) Atheists only have access to reality, therefore any moral reasoning by atheists is flawed

and

1) god is perfectly just
2) reasoning to determine what god's justice is, is not necessarily flawed because it god's justice exists.

So I'm supposing for a minute that this just god exists and therefore so does a kind of platonic ideal justice. The problem is that even if that is the case, humans clearly have an extraordinarily flawed understanding of what god or his justice really is. So:

1) Any reasoning based upon a flawed perception is inherently flawed;
2) God is the definition of justice;
3) And Christians have a limited and flawed perception of god and his justice;
4) Christians reason based upon their flawed perception of god;
5) Christians have a flawed moral system.

Which would explain the numerous contradictory theist views, both between sects and over time, on the nature of god and justice.

I would go a step further because I see no evidence of this god entity.

1) The ancients understanding of reality was considerably more flawed than our own flawed understanding;
2) Theists have a tradition about reality including a god figure which evolved out of ancient man's attempts to explain those parts of reality he found inexplicable.
3) Theists now allow the ancients flawed tradition about reality to be a greater authority than actual perception or scientific advances when determining what reality is;
4) Thus though the perception of all men about reality is flawed, theists perception is more flawed than atheists;

Thus the morals of the religious extremists tend to be stuck somewhere between 500 BC and 300 AD.

---

You're adding in a few illogical caveats. IMO you're confusing what is very simple.

Reality is flawed.
Reasoning from it is limited by those flaws.
Hence the atheist position

God is perfectly just
Reasoning from God reasons a just reality.

You are jumping right over the problem that even if god exists your knowledge of him is hopelessly flawed.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Human flaws exist. We are only capable of perfect justice given our inclusion of God. If we fail, then yes, it doesn't work. No problem there. This is what we deal with.

IF we fail? Jesus pretty much said you will fail at practicing perfect justice. But practice isn't the point. The point is can you determine what perfect justice is? Even assuming god is that perfection, how can you determine what justice is given your limited understanding of god?

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "Christian" not acting as if God were just are exactly the same as atheists. You're not disproving Christianity by saying that people failing at Christianity define it. They don't.

How do you act in a way that demonstrates your knowlege that god is just?

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mainstream Christianity as I practice and accept it encompasses many interpretations that the church body accepts as valid. Some interpretations are judged to be flawed, like Mormonism, and are not accepted.

It's those many interpretations that demonstrate that if there is a god, you have an imperfect understanding of him. ----- Mormonism is only a religion that is more easily demonstrated to be wanting as it's origins are more easily researched.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evidence of God isn't in question. Only belief is.

It's always in question until proved. Belief has nothing to do with reality.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The ancients view of reality has zero to do with this subject.
Humans worked out what God was.

If humans did work out what god is (and I don't think so) it was people pre 200 AD who did (Ancients) and they did it based on their understanding of reality.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Science had nothing to do with that, and has made zero advancements in it.

Science has to do with understanding how reality works. And science works in that it allows us to make predictions about reality and to improve our lot.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theists observe a functional belief system.

What demonstrable function does it perform?

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Flawed thinking by atheists and theists is flawed thinking.
Atheism is limited to a flawed reality.

No it is limited by flawed understanding of reality.

(October 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theism isn't limited to that flawed reality, but humans can and do fail as they are flawed.

Whether you believe in god or not you have only reality from which to draw the conclusion that god does or does not exist.