On Theism & Immaterial Minds

[FallentoReason]

If I don't agree with your premise, your conclusion is irrelevant, (not that I agree with it anyway).

My conclusion is your objection.

You say you don't think God is just. That's the same thing as saying a just God doesn't exist.

p.s. simply asserting ~p doesn't refute my argument. Your objection is begging the question.

What would be considered "just" in a material world if we were immaterial minds?

Why is this relevant?

[catfish]

If I don't agree with your premise, your conclusion is irrelevant, (not that I agree with it anyway).

My conclusion is your objection.

You say you don't think God is just. That's the same thing as saying a just God doesn't exist.

p.s. simply asserting ~p doesn't refute my argument. Your objection is begging the question.

What would be considered "just" in a material world if we were immaterial minds?

Why is this relevant?

First, I don't claim to know any of God's attributes for certain. So I can't agree with it. How can you be certain of that premise? Where do you get it from, the bible?

If we are immaterial minds, we're living in the matrix and anything bad that happens(ed) can be equated to no more relevant to reality than being beaten in a video game. So your premise of "just" also needs a definition.

[FallentoReason]

My conclusion is your objection.

You say you don't think God is just. That's the same thing as saying a just God doesn't exist.

p.s. simply asserting ~p doesn't refute my argument. Your objection is begging the question.


Why is this relevant?

First, I don't claim to know any of God's attributes for certain. So I can't agree with it.

Fair enough.

How can you be certain of that premise? Where do you get it from, the bible?

Psalm 25:8
God is fair and just; He corrects the misdirected, Sends them in the right direction.

If we are immaterial minds, we're living in the matrix and anything bad that happens(ed) can be equated to no more relevant to reality than being beaten in a video game. So your premise of "just" also needs a definition.

I agree with your analogy. I don't see what the problem is with the word "just" though. What is it about the analogy that makes you think the word "just" as we usually understand it doesn't exactly apply or something? What I'm basically highlighting in the OP is that "we" (humans and animals i.e. all immaterial minds) were once immaterial minds without physical bodies, and now we have entered this "game", but some of us (humans) will actually be judged based on what happens in this "game", and thus our immaterial minds will be cast into the pits of hell or will be graced by the clouds of heaven. Why is it that there were immaterial minds to begin with, and only some go through an intermediate phase where so much can be lost once they return to simply being immaterial minds? It's not at all a just treatment of these immaterial minds.

[fr0d0]

I've skimmed, but aren't you proposing that the mind is what is judged on its own, and not the actions of that mind? That's what justice is served on in my understanding (the actions). Also, i didn't see where you established that animals weren't self aware.

[FallentoReason]

I've skimmed, but aren't you proposing that the mind is what is judged on its own, and not the actions of that mind? That's what justice is served on in my understanding (the actions).

I agree. It's the actions, but the underlying assumption is that only "self-aware" minds will be judged i.e. humans, because (at least to me) it seems like religion only concerns humanity, the "self-aware" immaterial minds.

Also, i didn't see where you established that animals weren't self aware.

Again, it's all part of the underlying assumption that religion seems to be aimed at humans only. That an animal is self-aware or not is fundamentally a moot point, because can an animal surrender itself to Jesus Christ? Can an animal even read the Bible? Clearly not.

[fr0d0]

Didn't you just answer your own question there? The 'self aware' mind as you define it is the only one able to make choices which can be judged. If an animal can't make choices (in your analogy) then it can't be held responsible for its actions. It acts only on instinct.

[FallentoReason]

Didn't you just answer your own question there? The 'self aware' mind as you define it is the only one able to make choices which can be judged. If an animal can't make choices (in your analogy) then it can't be held responsible for its actions. It acts only on instinct.

Bingo, which means that it seems infinitely unfair to grab immaterial minds and give them different capabilities in the physical world such that some will be destined for eternal punishment while others didn't fit the criteria to be judged at all.

Why did I have to be a human with the possibility to be hell-bound instead of a cat which gets a free pass?

[max-greece]

Not a theist but trying to follow what you are arguing:

Suppose there is an immaterial mind - just one.

Suppose it is decanted into separate containers (brains) where is starts to act, to a greater or lesser extent, as an individual. Obviously this is an illusion of our state of being.

It also stands to reason that the larger the container (the brain) the larger the amount of immaterial mind that could be held within it. This means that lower orders of animals can only contain a tiny amount whilst we, in general, can hold rather more.

That we don't seem to find ants who are great philosophers but useless at getting food or looking after the young or what have you implies that the decanting of the single mind into the individual follows some kind of need basis. Self preservation instincts come first, then the breeding instinct and so on. If the container fills with this much mind in it the single mind then starts decanting into the next.

I think - therefore I am utterly confused.

[FallentoReason]

Not a theist but trying to follow what you are arguing:

Suppose there is an immaterial mind - just one.

Suppose it is decanted into separate containers (brains) where is starts to act, to a greater or lesser extent, as an individual. Obviously this is an illusion of our state of being.

It also stands to reason that the larger the container (the brain) the larger the amount of immaterial mind that could be held within it. This means that lower orders of animals can only contain a tiny amount whilst we, in general, can hold rather more.

That we don't seem to find ants who are great philosophers but useless at getting food or looking after the young or what have you implies that the decanting of the single mind into the individual follows some kind of need basis. Self preservation instincts come first, then the breeding instinct and so on. If the container fills with this much mind in it the single mind then starts decanting into the next.

So far so good. Now we can get into the actual argument:

God will judge only those individuals whose "container" is big enough such that the individual is "self-aware". These individuals happen to be the ones born into the human species. Judgement awaits us and not those individuals that were born as e.g. ants. It's an extremely unfair treatment of immaterial minds that seem a priori equal when not incarnated into a physical body.

[fr0d0]

Why did I have to be a human with the possibility to be hell-bound instead of a cat which gets a free pass?

Why so negative? You have the potential for greatness not granted to non sentient beings.

Cats don't get a pass at all. They are one dimensional.