Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Jenny A]

Hi Jenny

My knowledge of God isn't flawed. That knowledge is so far undefeatable and therefore solid. My knowledge is however limited, as we can't know all there is to know about God.

You claim your knowledge of god is unflawed? On what possible basis?

Limitations are flaws.

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

If this reality is unjust, it is unjust. Assuming a just god doesn't change it any.

You and I know what justice would look like. Our perception of reality is shaped by it.

Yes but our perceptions neither match, nor change actual reality.

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

This is what is agreed by most churches. It's very broad. The details are either in depute or so undefined as to be meaningless. Certainly justice is not defined in a useful way.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Yes but our beliefs don't shape reality, only our understanding of it.

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

Thinking is what describes justice. If it's flawed so is the justice imagined. There are no differing realities, only differing perceptions of reality.

[genkaus]

You need me to produce evidence of the theory of the big bang?

I need you to produce evidence for your hypothesis that god created the singularity that resulted in big-bang.

You can see my source. Aquinas theologica is freely accessible on the web.

Unfortunately, its not evidence.

Moral goodness logically succeeds from a creator which by its defining nature has to be good. It's where the idea of a good God comes from.

Is this tautology or is this equivocation?

"Moral goodness logically succeeds from a creator which by its defining nature has to be moral good." - argument rejected as an empty tautology.

"Moral goodness logically succeeds from a creator which by its defining nature has to be functional good." - invalid argument.

[fr0d0]

My knowledge of God isn't flawed.

This statement presupposes 3 things:
That a god exists.
That you know things about him.
That your knowledge corresponds to how he really is.

Without proving those three your statement is meaningless.

Agreed. And?

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

Contradiction alert: If we know this reality is unjust and we make decision on the assumption that it is just, then we are essentially making decision based on a lie.

Forgive me for being imprecise. A reality sans God ie the atheist reality, as established.

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

The bolded statement is sufficient to establish conflicting understanding of god. FYI, consistency on a subject is determined by logical coherency, not popular vote.

Our understanding of God does not conflict, but is logically consistent and coherent. I don't know how you would think that we could consider each other equally valid believers if not.
If you have an example of one of the other Christians on here who you think has an opposing idea of God on these forums I'd like to see if your claim is true.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Not everyone - for most here reality shapes beliefs.

All of our beliefs adopt reality. Our understanding of it is what sets us apart. My understanding of it includes a just creator. Yours doesn't. Belief in God doesn't change the colour of grass, but it does change my view of pointless suffering, for example.

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

It does if the assumption of justice is a product of flawed thinking.

You're chasing your tail there I believe. Your answer is exactly my first sentence.

---

I was trying to summise Jenny's points. It is a common concept that reality is unjust, and one that Christianity adopts. Human nature is flawed.

Again - both of these assertions presuppose supervening consciousness.

Not in my understanding they don't. Can you explain why you think that they might please?

I'm not claiming anything more than a theological concept here. I'm never going to want to prove to you that there is objective proof of God that negates belief in him. Even accepting the notion is insufficient. But you get my point.

The point I'm getting here is this: If you presuppose the fantasy notion that a perfectly just god exists then you can logically conclude that perfect justice exists and that reality is just and that all who disagree are doing so based on wrong reasoning and any glaring deviations from reality can be compensated by coming up with more fantasies.

All I'm doing here is presenting the reasoning to show that acknowledging a just God produces a different world view that is preferable to one that considers life to be unjust. I think that's a successful argument.

It's not an argument for the existence of God. Like I said, I don't think that's even possible, and I wouldn't even entertain it.

I get your point.

People failing at considering a just God... it was never people that were perfectly just. We fail as our nature makes us.

Apart from simply repeating it, you haven't yet established the existence of a just god either.

And I never will. See above.

In not accepting coquettish positions on faith. The mainstream church accept variations that are complimentary.

Also the variations that are contradictory.

Wow where did "coquettish" come from!?! Stupid autocorrect lol

Never contradictory, no.

---

My knowledge of God isn't flawed. That knowledge is so far undefeatable and therefore solid. My knowledge is however limited, as we can't know all there is to know about God.

You claim your knowledge of god is unflawed? On what possible basis?

Limitations are flaws.

Unflawed (eww horrible word ) on the basis that they are so far undefeated.

A perfect sphere is limited in that it cannot be a cube. Does that make it flawed?

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

If this reality is unjust, it is unjust. Assuming a just god doesn't change it any.

Our perception is what is different, not reality.

You and I know what justice would look like. Our perception of reality is shaped by it.

Yes but our perceptions neither match, nor change actual reality.

Agreed

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

This is what is agreed by most churches. It's very broad. The details are either in depute or so undefined as to be meaningless. Certainly justice is not defined in a useful way.

Those are central tenets that I acknowledge. Ok so you showed what we agree upon. Now show me something which, in your opinion, is conflicting to the extent that it should divide us.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Yes but our beliefs don't shape reality, only our understanding of it.

Agreed

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

Thinking is what describes justice. If it's flawed so is the justice imagined. There are no differing realities, only differing perceptions of reality.

Agreed

[genkaus]

Agreed. And?

And since you haven't proven those statements, your claim regarding knowledge of god is meaningless.

Forgive me for being imprecise. A reality sans God ie the atheist reality, as established.

Its still imprecise. The concept of justice doesn't apply to a reality sans god.

Our understanding of God does not conflict, but is logically consistent and coherent. I don't know how you would think that we could consider each other equally valid believers if not.
If you have an example of one of the other Christians on here who you think has an opposing idea of God on these forums I'd like to see if your claim is true.

There is the other thread regarding god's omnibenevolence. Then there is the new gonna-be-catholic member who who favors works, not faith. Then there are members who think god's morality is objective and others who think morality doesn't apply to god. There are contradictions all over the place.

All of our beliefs adopt reality. Our understanding of it is what sets us apart. My understanding of it includes a just creator. Yours doesn't. Belief in God doesn't change the colour of grass, but it does change my view of pointless suffering, for example.

Not all.

You're chasing your tail there I believe. Your answer is exactly my first sentence.

You mean your claim that your thinking is not flawed. The one you haven't provided evidence for.

Not in my understanding they don't. Can you explain why you think that they might please?

Both justice and perfection are conceptual constructs - existence of a conscious entity is required for their application. Further, any meaningful application requires the entity to be capable of manipulating those objects - thus, a supervening conscious entity. Without the assumption of such a supervening consciousness, the application of those concepts to reality is meaningless.

All I'm doing here is presenting the reasoning to show that acknowledging a just God produces a different world view that is preferable to one that considers life to be unjust. I think that's a successful argument.

It's not an argument for the existence of God. Like I said, I don't think that's even possible, and I wouldn't even entertain it.

I get your point.

More correctly, presupposing a just god produces a different world-view - that much is correct. Why would it be preferable?

Wow where did "coquettish" come from!?! Stupid autocorrect lol

Never contradictory, no.

See examples above.

Unflawed (eww horrible word ) on the basis that they are so far undefeated.

A perfect sphere is limited in that it cannot be a cube. Does that make it flawed?

It is not within the nature of a sphere to be cube. But it is within the nature of knowledge to be complete.

[fr0d0]

I can't follow your points gen if you don't leave the relevant quote in place.

There is the other thread regarding god's omnibenevolence. Then there is the new gonna-be-catholic member who who favors works, not faith. Then there are members who think god's morality is objective and others who think morality doesn't apply to god. There are contradictions all over the place.

When I refer to Christians here, I'm referencing mainstream and not JW's, Mormons etc. k.

Omnibenevolence is a misunderstood attribute. Christians often misrepresent biblical teaching by citing it. I did it myself long ago. To put it simply, it simply isn't an attribute of the Christian God.
Works vs faith is a complex one. He's very young. Christians believe in faith, not works.
Objective morality and non appliance... two sides of the same coin.
None of these are deal breakers IMO.

Flawed claim? Of the bible being so far inerrant? I've tried hard to find evidence but found none.

Why is a just world outlook preferable? I think I covered that in my 1st post in this thread.

Surely it's the nature of knowledge to want to know more. Full knowledge of your subject is logically unknowable, unless you're God.

[Jenny A]

You claim your knowledge of god is unflawed? On what possible basis?

Limitations are flaws.

Unflawed (eww horrible word ) on the basis that they are so far undefeated.

A perfect sphere is limited in that it cannot be a cube. Does that make it flawed?

Flawless if you like but the point is that limited knowledge is flawed because what we don't know can change our whole perception. That knowledge can't be a cube or fly isn't relevant to knowledge.

If this reality is unjust, it is unjust. Assuming a just god doesn't change it any.

Our perception is what is different, not reality.

Yes but our perceptions neither match, nor change actual reality.

Agreed

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

This is what is agreed by most churches. It's very broad. The details are either in depute or so undefined as to be meaningless. Certainly justice is not defined in a useful way.

Those are central tenets that I acknowledge. Ok so you showed what we agree upon. Now show me something which, in your opinion, is conflicting to the extent that it should divide us.

Yes but our beliefs don't shape reality, only our understanding of it.

Agreed

Thinking is what describes justice. If it's flawed so is the justice imagined. There are no differing realities, only differing perceptions of reality.

Agreed

We seem to agree on a lot. Where we disagree is threefold:

1) Is there a god ( I say not proven);

2) Does our limited ability to perceive reality allow us know if there is one (I say it doesn't appear too, though if there were one, it could presumably fix that);

3) Justice comes from god (I say it is a human construct rational, but not caused by the material world).

As to whether Christians agree, I would admit that you all think god is just and good. But you seem to disagree about exactly what justice and goodness are.

[fr0d0]

Unflawed (eww horrible word ) on the basis that they are so far undefeated.

A perfect sphere is limited in that it cannot be a cube. Does that make it flawed?

Flawless if you like but the point is that limited knowledge is flawed because what we don't know can change our whole perception. That knowledge can't be a cube or fly isn't relevant to knowledge.

If we can know (as I believe we can logically, not acknowledging actual belief at this point) that God is good, then that's quite a lot to go on. Extra knowledge isn't going to change that, for example. So I wouldn't agree that limited is flawed in this sense.

We seem to agree on a lot. Where we disagree is threefold:

1) Is there a god ( I say not proven);

2) Does our limited ability to perceive reality allow us know if there is one (I say it doesn't appear too, though if there were one, it could presumably fix that);

3) Justice comes from god (I say it is a human construct rational, but not caused by the material world).

As to whether Christians agree, I would admit that you all think god is just and good. But you seem to disagree about exactly what justice and goodness are.

1) I say not proven too

2) No

3) I believe in God, and I understand that he is just and more than good. A worldview that supposes justice served includes God in my view, sure.

[genkaus]

When I refer to Christians here, I'm referencing mainstream and not JW's, Mormons etc. k.

I'm not aware of any members here who belong to those groups.

Omnibenevolence is a misunderstood attribute. Christians often misrepresent biblical teaching by citing it. I did it myself long ago. To put it simply, it simply isn't an attribute of the Christian God.
Works vs faith is a complex one. He's very young. Christians believe in faith, not works.
Objective morality and non appliance... two sides of the same coin.
None of these are deal breakers IMO.

So basically:
You do disagree with other mainstream Christians about omnibenevolence, you are just saying that they are wrong and you are right.
And you do disagree about faith vs works - again, you are right and he is wrong.
And the two clearly distinct issues about morality are the same?

The point is, there is conflict and contradiction within mainstream Christianity - just because you pretend the other side is mistaken doesn't make the conflict disappear.

Flawed claim? Of the bible being so far inerrant? I've tried hard to find evidence but found none.

That happens when you stay blind to the facts.

Why is a just world outlook preferable? I think I covered that in my 1st post in this thread.

Your first post here says: "My feeling is that theism is the acknowledgement of purpose. In that respect I can view nihilism as it's polar opposite."

It has nothing to do with just world outlook. Nor does your second, third or fourth.


[quote='fr0d0' pid='768627' dateline='1412716376']Surely it's the nature of knowledge to want to know more. Full knowledge of your subject is logically unknowable, unless you're God.

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Well, slave labor is functional. So is uninformed medical testing. Shooting someone in the face to take their money works.

Do you want to reword your point yet? I could go on. You're making a material appeal to define your morality.

Christianity ain't what it used to be!

---

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.

Except that emergent properties have been observed to occur, while god and crickets seem to be interchangeable.

The emergent property of consciousness has been observed to exist in mammals proportionate to the complexity of their brains.

We're still waiting for the first observation of any god who might have didit.

---

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

ITT, a Christian defends bashing out the brains of babies as "just."

Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?

[fr0d0]

When I refer to Christians here, I'm referencing mainstream and not JW's, Mormons etc. k.

I'm not aware of any members here who belong to those groups.

Neither am I at this point in time. But we've had a few, and some members are adamant about defining christianity accurately. Non trinitarian christians are still christians.

Omnibenevolence is a misunderstood attribute. Christians often misrepresent biblical teaching by citing it. I did it myself long ago. To put it simply, it simply isn't an attribute of the Christian God.
Works vs faith is a complex one. He's very young. Christians believe in faith, not works.
Objective morality and non appliance... two sides of the same coin.
None of these are deal breakers IMO.

So basically:
You do disagree with other mainstream Christians about omnibenevolence, you are just saying that they are wrong and you are right.
And you do disagree about faith vs works - again, you are right and he is wrong.
And the two clearly distinct issues about morality are the same?

The point is, there is conflict and contradiction within mainstream Christianity - just because you pretend the other side is mistaken doesn't make the conflict disappear.

No, I don't disagree with mainstream Christians on omnibenevolence. The mainstream Christian view is that God is not omnibenevolent
Faith vs works. Yes, he's wrong about his faith. His faith is consisteent with my own. Everyone makes mistakes.
I saw nothing contradictory about morality, no.

These examples don't qualify as contradictory. I've been mistaken myself plenty times. I think I have been this week where Lek has corrected me. Never have I claimed perfect knowledge, and neither has any other Christian here as far as I'm aware. And why would they? If a Christian was to claim perfection, then that would contradict the basic tenet that humans are flawed now wouldn't it?

Flawed claim? Of the bible being so far inerrant? I've tried hard to find evidence but found none.

That happens when you stay blind to the facts.

Feel free to correct me. What can I do? I've been looking for many years now. Where is your evidence?

Why is a just world outlook preferable? I think I covered that in my 1st post in this thread.

Your first post here says: "My feeling is that theism is the acknowledgement of purpose. In that respect I can view nihilism as it's polar opposite."

It has nothing to do with just world outlook. Nor does your second, third or fourth.

Purpose/ outlook. Purpose built upon a just outlook, as I've expanded upon several times now.

My point being... a moral outlook based upon an unfair world is inferior to a moral outlook based upon a fair world.

Surely it's the nature of knowledge to want to know more. Full knowledge of your subject is logically unknowable, unless you're God.

The nature of knowledge has no wants. And its your presupposition that full knowledge is logically unknowable.

So who knows everything? Do you?