Let's be biblically literary

[GrandizerII]

If the purpose is to inform us of something very important for our spiritual wellbeing, then FM is being reasonable.

If the purpose is to inform us straight out of something that it wants to tell us straight out, then I guess it would do so. 

Why do we assume that an omni-type deity would do that? Is it possible that it's better for people to learn it for themselves? Being a great pianist includes the process of learning. It might be that being morally good includes that also. 

I don't know, since I'm not omniscient. But assuming that a god which is far beyond human understanding would share our opinions about things seems unjustified.

Again, if the purpose is to inform us of something that we really need to know about our wellbeing, you're saying your argument wouldn't change? That you'll stick to your current argument and not acknowledge that perhaps the counterarguments is reasonable?

Belaqua, what ... exactly ... is stopping you from being a Christian?

[Fake Messiah]

If the purpose is to inform us of something very important for our spiritual wellbeing, then FM is being reasonable.

If the purpose is to inform us straight out of something that it wants to tell us straight out, then I guess it would do so. 

Why do we assume that an omni-type deity would do that?

Yeah, gee, why would I assume that a deity which is ready to punish people to torture and pain for eternity, if they don't obey his rules, would write those rules very clear so that people can avoid it?

[Belacqua]

if the purpose is to inform us of something that we really need to know about our wellbeing, 

That's a big if. 

It might be that we have been informed, but not in an easy way. 

you're saying your argument wouldn't change? That you'll stick to your current argument and not acknowledge that perhaps the counterarguments is reasonable?

I don't see any counterargument to what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that we don't know what methods an omniscient existence would use. 

I agree that IFF it's best for us to get the straight dope, and an omniscient existence "wanted" to give us that, then it could presumably do that. But again, why is the best way to teach what's important always the most like an Ikea instruction sheet? We are thinking animals, not little sparks of rationality that happen to inhabit meat bodies, and our means of understanding work in all kinds of animalistic ways -- through body memory, through subconscious drives, through unprovable values, etc. etc. Just because a deity typed out some important information doesn't mean people would or could follow it. 

I happen to think that we learn more about what's important to humanity by re-reading Proust than from all the fMRI studies ever done. But you have to work on it.

[GrandizerII]

if the purpose is to inform us of something that we really need to know about our wellbeing, 

That's a big if. 

It might be that we have been informed, but not in an easy way. 

you're saying your argument wouldn't change? That you'll stick to your current argument and not acknowledge that perhaps the counterarguments is reasonable?

I don't see any counterargument to what I'm saying.

All I'm saying is that we don't know what methods an omniscient existence would use. 

I agree that IFF it's best for us to get the straight dope, and an omniscient existence "wanted" to give us that, then it could presumably do that. But again, why is the best way to teach what's important always the most like an Ikea instruction sheet? We are thinking animals, not little sparks of rationality that happen to inhabit meat bodies, and our means of understanding work in all kinds of animalistic ways -- through body memory, through subconscious drives, through unprovable values, etc. etc. Just because a deity typed out some important information doesn't mean people would or could follow it. 

I happen to think that we learn more about what's important to humanity by re-reading Proust than from all the fMRI studies ever done. But you have to work on it.

The assumption I'm making is there's something we really need to know regarding our well being and we have to do something specific to ensure we'll be fine later down the track (in the afterlife or something).

I'm not talking about moral guidance here.

[Belacqua]

The assumption I'm making is there's something we really need to know regarding our well being and we have to do something specific to ensure we'll be fine later down the track (in the afterlife or something).

I'm not talking about moral guidance here.

You also seem to be assuming that the best way for us to learn what this is is through simple discursive sentences. 

I don't know whether that's true or not. It would kind of depend on what that "something" is, I guess. 

And it seems to me that in any sort of spiritual life, morality is crucial. In fact, I think that the example of Plato and others shows that ancient people tended to see scientific-type fact as secondary to the question of how we should behave.

[Acrobat]

@Acrobat

It wouldn’t be a book at all, for one.

What would it be then?

[Mister Agenda]

Does the God Belaqua refers to even provide an afterlife at all, or care about our morality? If it's methodology is unfathomable, so are it's motives. It could want anything so why try to please it at all?

[LadyForCamus]

@Acrobat

It wouldn’t be a book at all, for one.

What would it be then?

Literally anything else would have been more efficient.

[Acrobat]

What would it be then?

Literally anything else would have been more efficient.

Efficient for what purpose? 

For the acceptance of some sort of cosmic, supernatural equivalent of accepting a scientific and historical fact?

[LadyForCamus]

Literally anything else would have been more efficient.

Efficient for what purpose? 

For the acceptance of some sort of cosmic, supernatural equivalent of accepting a scientific and historical fact?

Huh? No. That’s not what I mean. 

Is god a rational mind?