rainbow walking

Hi Diana,


The argument about what could have been has always struck me as weak and pointless.


But isn’t that the crowbar used by PoE to pry open alternate states of affairs that an omnipotent god could have instantiated?


All the opposition has to do is say, "Yes, he could have, but he didn't. It is not our place to second-guess God."

rw: I suppose, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’ve postulated a could have as close to what is, as possible, without getting too cumbersome in detail. I’m arguing from observable states of affairs rather than alternate ones. That doesn’t make the argument valid, but then, that’s what I’ve got friends and cyber pals like you to show me:^D

IOWs, it always brings you back to dealing with a person who tells you he trusts his own mind only up to the point that it comes to questioning what other men have told him about a deity he cannot support with any evidence yet refuses to relinquish his belief in. (And some of them will tell you they don't even trust their own mind, period. But how do you argue with a person who isn't even sure he's arguing with you?)

d

rw: Good question. I would let him explore all the options of his thinking processes and respond to any arguments he does set forth that I felt were erroneous and hope for the best. I appreciate what you’re saying but not sure how to respond. None of us can see very far beyond today. Given that I’ll be leaving Monday AM and will not be back for a long time I take with me fond memories of the challenges presented here, along with much more knowledge than when I came. More than enough to dwell on until, and if, I return.

diana

I'm not sure I understand, rainbow walking. I don't see the PoE as presenting alternate states of affairs so much as pointing out the actual state of affairs. Evil does exist; this is inconsistent with the existence of an omni-b and omni-p god.

As you well know (and I readily admit), I see most of these arguments in a very simple way. I'm not sure if this is because I'm incapable of going deeper, or if I just don't see the point, when I see flaws at a simple level. Probably a bit of both.

I mention this because I'm probably missing the point of your argument. It isn't because I'm trying to take the rug out from under your proverbial feet; it's more likely because I simply fail to see the point in discussing how it could have been, given the existence of an omni-god, when I already know your typical Xn will shut down the argument by shifting it to a question of "human understanding," anyway.

Then I'm missing how, exactly, the possibility of how a god could have made things better is an observable state.

Sounds for all the world like you're deploying. Whether or not this is true, it's clear there is much I don't know about you.

I wish you a safe journey. I'll miss you.

d

Koyaanisqatsi

Rainbow--

Believe it or not, I'm not going to go point-by-point (as is my wont) in response to your last post; not because your arguments don't warrant such respect, but because I think a more general discussion is in order, and you effectively addressed all of my points in kind (a first for me here at the ol' sec web grunt and sweat shop, by the way, so thanks ), but first one point you made:

It may shock you to learn that you aren't alone in that and that I actually consider myself to be a very spiritual person. I am not a strict materialist, for example and have no problem at all postulating the existence of, shall we say, "higher realms" (ask me sometime about my experience with a psychic and my subsequent "conversation" with my spiritual guide; that'll blow both our minds).

One of the differences between myself and cult members (substantively), is that I consider alternatve universes and "higher realms" to be just as natural (i.e., not super natural) as our three (or four) dimensional universe and also think that the world's cults cull these grains of truth, perverting them into their control dogma.

But, more to your post, is this intervention you posit then necessarily the result of an "omnimax god?" I suppose that would be the central fallacy I find in what you posted.

In essence, on one level, you're positing some form of extra-terrestial (and, perhaps, extra-universal, to coin a phrase) being that had the power (and was limited to that power) to visit our planet centuries ago and introduce an alteration of some kind in our genetic code that gives rise to "predisposition toward righteousnes."

Is that closer? I accept your operating system analogy, but the problem I see with both of our interpretations is more in the "righteousness" quality, since that's much more nebulus and strikes me as more (as you mentioned) a by-product of cult indoctrination.

Why would such a being perform such an alteration and how would it know that we needed such an alteration and what, in fact, would such an abstract alteration mean, either to us or to the being?

If I may? Implicit in your analogy is the notion that the being performing the "download:"

1. Knows how to effect such an abstract change in human behavior mechanisms
2. Desires to effect such a change, and
3. Is itself in some way effected by actively intervening; i.e., seeks some pertinant return on their intervention

In other worsds, this being has some sort of vested interest in making this intervention. Fair?

I think we both agree to throw out the fallacy of "who are you to know the mind and motive of god," yes and should concentrate instead on the substantive elements outlined above?

Let's start with "A." You had posited a longer time period for this change to fully reallize itself (similar to changing a small element of an entire species' DNA, I guess, that would, over millenia shape and mold that species into an augmented or "different" species, yes?), however, the change you are suggesting was one of an abstract nature; of morality (which, necessarily cannot be spread out over time, as I'll get to in a minute).

This, in turn, means that the "righteousness" we're discussing is actually nothing more than the being's beliefs as to what is or is not considered to be "righteous" for humans, no less, and, further, that the intervention (the software upgrade) is, in some way, established to be objectively righteous; an impossibility.

This is no doubt where your "omnimax" qualification is employed, but I don't see how it can be, without that omnimax qualification being the traditional one of cult dogma; i.e., that this being posseses absolute knowledge of what is and is not righteous (as far as humans are concerned).

How else could this being justify such an intervention and how else could we qualify the intervention as being a beneficial one in any substantive sense, if not for the assumed possession of absolute knowledge of what is and is not righteous (as far as humans are concerned)?

Your being would have to have this absolute knowledge, which in turn would mean that there actually exists an absolute "righteousness" for all human beings. Unfortunately, however, that is impossible, since morality (i.e., what is "righteous") has no objective status and, further, cannot have such an objective status, due to the nature of the abstraction.

In keeping with your analogy, it would be like upgrading an operating system to stop someone from typing the word "shit," because the augmented operating system considers such a word to be "unrighteous," yes? Or, for a more complex analogy, from stopping you from typing anti-semitic remarks or "hate" letters, since such letters (and thoughts) are, arguably, "unrighteous."

The problem of course is, "unrighteous" according to what standard? In your post, you've merely sidestepped that qualification by the omnimax standard, but, again, one cannot impose an omnimax standard that doesn't meet its own omnimax qualities (i.e., put limits on the limitless).

Am I being clear? For the being to intervene in such a way, it would have to have absolute knowledge of something that can never be established in any absolute manner, only imposed based upon subjective qualification.

In other words, we would simply be forced into living what the being has decided is a "righteous" end game for humans, either directly or indirectly, as it pertains to that being's notions of what is (or is not) "righteous" behavior for humans to achieve.

What gives this being the right to impose their interpretation of what is or is not "righteous" for human behavior?

Take the animal kingdom that we all pretend we're no longer a part of. Carnivores maim and eat their prey while the prey is still alive, yet no one pays any attention to that in any moral sense. It only becomes relevant to us when the question is asked, "Would you consider it a righteous act for me to bludgeon you and proceed to eat you while you are still alive?"

Assuming (as we must) that the being you posit is not human and that humans are therefore comparable to any other animal in the planet's biosystem, why is it that humans are the only ones selected for this "upgrade?" Wouldn't the being see bludgeoning and eating one another alive as equally reprehensible, no matter what sub-being committed the act?

It can't be based on either intelligence or on self-perception, since there is ample evidence (and such a being would, presumably, have even more than we) that intelligence and self-perception exists in one form or another throughout the entire animal kingdom of this planet, so, what in particular would attract this being to single out man for such an upgrade?

This leads us to "B" (why such a being would desire such an intervention). The cultists usually answer with "we're made in God's image" or the like; i.e., the anthropomorphic god, concerned only about our righteousness, but to what end?

In cults, the end result is, of course, control and allegiance to the cult dogma, but that isn't in play here, presumably, so why would your being single us out for this intervention? We possess some sort of quality that makes it necessary that only our species be targeted for this righteousness enhancement (leading us to "C")?

By making us more inclined toward "righteousness," we will somehow later benefit this being in some fashion? How? If such a being existed and had the power (limited as you are stating) to effect this nebulus, moral alteration in our genetic code someway, how would it possibly benefit the being (especially considering that this change isn't automatic; it will take millenia to come to fruition and even then, each individual will have to decide to assent to the programming to uphold free will--more on that later)?

Altruism, then? The being is effecting this change because it considers it the "right" thing to do?

Again, then, according to what standard and why should we assent to that standard, assuming we actually retain the ability to assent of our own free will (which is still in question according to your parameters)?

If this being is effecting this change for its own, unstated, unknown purposes, does that mean we are to merely acquiesce to those unstated, unknown purposes and how could we, if indeed they are unstated and uknown (to us)?

If this being is effecting this change for altruistic purposes, then aren't we merely being effected and have no free will?

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it all does go back to by-products of your cult indoctrination, since absent punishment for non-compliance and absent clear and definitive admission of motives on the part of the being effecting the change (or, better, the ability for us to change over time as a result of our software upgrade), then all that is occuring is a more powerful being than we is meddling in our affairs without due process or fair warning, and we would be, once again, robots.

Since "righteousness" has no absolute (absent an omnimax god mandating such a standard due entirely to its omnimax qualities; qualities already established as fallacious), the only thing left to your take on things is to merely accept that a being capable of intervening in such a manner ipso facto means that the being's motives are benign.

Regardless, it still boils down to a presumption of "I know what's good for you" and then the inability of any of us to change the course of events inflicted upon us, since we would, again, have no choice in the matter one way or the other.

The being has made the decision for us by altering our DNA (or whatever) and we would be simply playing out whatever our software instructed us to play out.

Again, since this being presumably knows what the software will do (including the option to choose not to follow the software, a seeming contradiction), then it makes even less sense that it would effect such a change in a "primitive" state of our existence and trigger it for millenia alteration.

Why would it, if indeed our progressing toward "righteousness" is so important to the being?

Which takes us back to the notion that the being does not have "omnimax" qualities, rather the ability to effect a crapshoot change, hoping that we assent to the change and run the software accordingly.

For that to happen, however, we are the ones who would have to have full knowledge (at every generation, not just over time) of that choice in our programming, otherwise, again, all that would have happened is an etra-terrestial being with the power to effect our moral compass would have simply implanted an automatic program that results in our evolution toward "righteousness" with or without our assent.

For it to be a choice we make, literally every single human in every single generation would have to be made fully aware of our ability to choose the being's definition of what is (or is not) "righteous," for us to assent to the "booting" of that software, thus the being could not have merely implanted a seed long ago in primitive man (if free will is a consideration, of course).

In other words, such an intervention could only be justified by the being on a generation to generation basis, arguably defeating the entire purpose of intervening initially in primitive man's "drawing board," yes?

Again, I would argue simply that this is a holdover of your cult indoctrination, since you seem to be trying to dismiss all of the fallacies and all of the negative connotations to cult dogma, while retaining the positive notion of a deus ex machina to solve our own problems; generated by us and therefore our own responsibility.

In short, IMO, you're seeking to answer the "why" to existence by merely positing a "lesser" god; one who, unfortunately, falls prey to the same illogical construction as the "absolute" god.

Theli

Let's see if I got this straight, you are saying that:
If god did not create the world then god does not exist. And there's a problem somewhere?
I find it strange that you ask "why?" instead of "how?". Thus assuming that something having "wants" caused us to be.

rainbow walking

Hi Koy,


Koy:

Believe it or not, I'm not going to go point-by-point (as is my wont) in response to your last post; not because your arguments don't warrant such respect, but because I think a more general discussion is in order, and you effectively addressed all of my points in kind (a first for me here at the ol' sec web grunt and sweat shop, by the way, so thanks )

rw: You’re welcome and it was my pleasure.

Koy: but first one point you made:



Koy: It may shock you to learn that you aren't alone in that and that I actually consider myself to be a very spiritual person. I am not a strict materialist, for example and have no problem at all postulating the existence of, shall we say, "higher realms" (ask me sometime about my experience with a psychic and my subsequent "conversation" with my spiritual guide; that'll blow both our minds).

One of the differences between myself and cult members (substantively), is that I consider alternatve universes and "higher realms" to be just as natural (i.e., not super natural) as our three (or four) dimensional universe and also think that the world's cults cull these grains of truth, perverting them into their control dogma.

rw: Thank you, Koy, for articulating my feelings which, to this point, I’d never really tried to do. I share your sense of spirituality and this is likely why I haven’t been able to completely embrace materialism as the final explanation. I guess then, it’s a matter of further refining this “sense” of spirituality into our worldview? I’m trying to refine it via some sort of super sentient being which may not work, or may lead to a re-conversion into some other form of cult driven epistemology. Clearly I must choose my refining techniques carefully so as to arrive at an end result without contradiction.

It may be the case that my past experiences favor a single super deity explanation. Certainly when we compare multiple realms with a single super sentience, Occam’s razor fits my hand, but that’s an aside I’ll save for later.

For now I have a more pressing and immediate problem that involves time and economics. I’ve got to pack for a trip. I want, more than you know, to explore the pros and cons of your remaining points but I know that if I do so now, the next time I look up from this terminal I’ll be missing some daylight. So I’m probably going to take this computer with me and make a connection when I get settled and seriously examine your arguments from every angle my feeble intellect will afford…and then post a response. This may take a while so don’t think I’ve given up on you. As the old saying goes, “If the creeks don’t rise and the good lawd’s willing…” I’ll be back.

Jayhawker Soule

I am clearly uninterested in multiplying your existence beyond that which is necessary. Even then, your existence is fully consistent with any number of fantasies. To suggest;

• Y is consistent with X, therefore X

is faulty.
What a curious statement. I have every expectation of raising my disagreement with theists and, in fact, do so often.

There is no 'reasonable expectation' derivable from the existence of X because X, being Supernatural, is simply outside the domain of reason. What, for example, are the reason based selection criteria when applied to this Supernatural Domain?

• Why is a single God more reasonable than God(s)?
• Why is a loving God more reasonable than a malicious God?
• Why is a personal God more reasonable than an impersonal God?
• Why is an honest God more reasonable than a dishonest God?

And why would your existence be more consistent with one combination than with the other 15?

Koyaanisqatsi

Or take the original god concept that so enamored you to begin with and ask what the primary cardinal sin was within your cult? Thinking that you are god.

Beside murder, there is arguably no greater "sin" than to commit blasphemy, which should tell anyone intelligent enough to blink properly that the "grain of truth" is right there in plain sight; that you are, in fact, god.

Cult members hate that one so much, that they used to stone you to death for even thinking it! The Lady doth protest too much, methinks...

Just augment that a little to "you are your own god" in order to account for mythological nonsense and insipid apologetics and delusions of grandeur that cults sell at the same time they stomp out, and just about every single thing you've ever been indoctrinated with will start to fall into place.

You are your own god.

You'll just have to overcome all of the incredibly stringent operant conditioning employed to stop you from arriving at that very conclusion (one that the Essenes arrived at long ago, and they are regarded as the first real Jesus cult, in some circles ).

Now, what does it mean to be "your own god?" Well, simply, that you are responsible for everything you do or say or practice or preach at the same time alluding quite nicely to the more "ethereal" aspect of your possible "meta" self that we all seem to carry around within ourselves; i.e., that your consciousness gave rise to (if you will) a physicallization; a sensory input device commonly referred to as a "body," because this paradigm requires such an extension of your consciousness in order to experience and learn.

The key to it all (IMO, and at this point in my 37 year quest) is to recognize that there is no (and never has been) any separation between the two in this paradigm; they exist symbiotically.

Now, does that necessarily mean that when your body dies, so dies your consciousness? IMO, no, since neither actually "dies" (as in, is annihilated) in this or any other theoretical paradigm. As we know, energy cannot be destroyed, it merely is diverted into a different state. The body certainly continues to live by dissipating into the soil and transforming into various compounds once the "lifeforce" (if you will) is said to "die," but that makes perfect sense if you consider that all that has happened is your consciousness has shifted to a new paradigm where such a physicalization is no longer required (i.e., shedding the exoskeleton).

To those still in the paradigm, it would look like a once animate configuration of molecules has now become an inanimate configuration of molecules that will immediately begin to reprocess back into the paradigm.

Well, if that's the case with your physical representation of your consciousness as interpreted into the third dimensional paradigm, then why would you assume your consciousness is annihilated at "death" instead of merely diverted into a different energy state (another grain of truth I have always felt cults use to pervert their dogma) in kind?

When we need to climb a mountain, we put on parkas and snow shoes. When we need to dive in the ocean, we put on scuba gear and oxygen tanks. Etc. Why is it that much of a stretch to say that when we enter into the third dimensional paradigm, we put on third dimensional "bodies" ("stretch" in the sense of one freely speculating about the lessons that might be culled from philo-theological constructs and discussions, that is)?

As for the "super sentient being," well, that's part and parcel to the whole; i.e., you.

Now, to get out of just you and into the social world we live in, one must then consider a hierarchy (much, again, in the way the catholic cult imagined a hierarchy in heaven), in which you "advance" in some ways on your journey to those different energy states.

This isn't exactly new and yes, it certainly smacks of religion, but the difference is to cull through all of the bullshit and see if there might be any grains of truth that resonate or make sense.

Although my materialist friends will no doubt argue differently, I don't consider dreams to occur in the brain, but then I got into a pickle a while back when I posited string theory paradigms as possible universes wherein our "consciousness's" may lie (and am right now engaged in a debate, of sorts, questioning just this thing in another) so, perhaps I should leave it at that and see where that may (or may not) take you. But I won't...shocked?

The important things to take into consideration (IMO) are the facts that we do indeed exist separately from one another (i.e., it's not all just somebody's imagination) and that we (meaning all matter) are social beings; i.e., that whatever we may ultimately be, one thing is for sure, we seek to help each other figure it all out.

We establish rules and regulations for the most beneficial mutual existence possible (for our limited intelligence, I should add, cynically) and we largely follow those rules that are truly beneficial to all concerned; or at least make a concerted effort to do so. I don't see why that would necessarily dissappear in any other or different energy states, though I would hope with each successive step we "progress," though, if our current existence has any lessons, it is that "progress" comes and goes with circumstance, so who knows? Perhaps bits of my own childhood indoctrination?

Regardless, I have no problems postulating that consciousness is not necessarily "bound" to matter (not to be confused with being symbiotic; that's not the same thing and if need be I'll get into it further) and that dreams demonstrate that rather succinctly every night. Further that consciousness can indeed (and does on a regular basis) "transcend" matter, if you will; meaning that we can imagine and even establish (at least theoretically and/or mathematically) the likely existence of many different levels of paradigms (i.e., different universes) that our consciences could exist in.

Do I have any compelling evidence of this in order to make any kind of "official" claim? No, which is why I usually choose not to discuss my speculation as it can all too easily be misconstrued or not thoroughly addressed, but I certainly do not discount the world's cults and their subsequent dogmas (much to the shock of most cult members here, no doubt), but, as you had mentioned, do take them into account and seek to sift through the 99.98 percent bullshit in order to see if a piece of the puzzle might come in handy.

So far, what I have culled is that matter and consciousness are indeed symbiotic; but matter has qualities (on the micro level) that imply (at the very least) that there is most likely a deeper level to existence than just the more familiar three (or four) dimensional one we deal with half of our time here (the other half being the dream state).

Now, as to who or what may (or may not) have "ultimately" created or instigated or started or any other word you want to use for all of this is entirely irrelevant to what I am doing here (if anything at all). Call it delusions of grandeur (you wouldn't be the first ), but whether it was a big bang or a god doesn't really matter at all, since the evidence that exists for either points to an entirely indifferent "first cause," should one exist.

So, is there a "purpose" to your life? Only if you impose one. Will you be punished for not doing or believing something? No, unless you take it upon yourself to punish yourself. Are there others "out there" (in the theoretical next energy state of consciousness) that may (or may not) be acting as hierarchical judges and juries? Possibly. That would make sense and would be in keeping with our social interactions here, so why not the next place (whatever that is and if that is; accepting and allowing for the impact of survival here and how such paradigms might not exist in the same manner in the theoretical different energy state plane that I'm spewing out my ass about), but would those judges and juries be concerned with punishment necessarily?

Well, if you consider three dimensional reality to be "punishment" (again, culling from the world's cults), possibly, but in a different sense than I think you or I would think of it.

Believe it or not, I think Albert Brooks has hit it closest to the bone in "Defending Your Life." Again, we're social creatures and as such we don't want to surround ourselves with idiots and morons, so could there be a sort of filtering process that occurs with each "transition" of your energy state, quite possibly. Makes sense, again in relation to how we all respond here on Earth (ie., in the third dimensional plane).

The key for me ( if you care at this point ) is to employ a modified version of Freud's projection theory in conjunction with Jung's "collective unconscious," and simply apply everything you've learned from interacting with all kinds of beings (including matter, which I do consider to be conscious).

An amalgam of the world's cults? Sure, but again, why not? Distilling the mountain sometimes gets you gold (and sometimes fool's gold), but as a thought experiment it certainly answers a lot of questions (and, yes, raises others), but if one thing is true, it's that we have the ability to reflect and theorize. So long as that reflection doesn't impose itself on others or effect anyone else in any adverse manner (unlike cults) then at the very least it gets you thinking about how you want to live.

As I've always said, regardless of any of this mental masturbation, so long as your corpse is smiling, everything else is background noise.

And think of it this way, if we're wrong and annihilation is all that awaits, we won't be around to sense it. If we're wrong in the cult sense, then we will have lived a fully intelligent and seeking life with open minds that allow for all intellectual input to stimulate us according to the very nature that any alleged god created us with to begin with (and, if the christian cult is right, all we'll have to do at that point is say, "forgive me" and "He" will have to, since our sincerity could not possibly be in question; we'd have more than enough direct evidence to believe); the true Pascal's Wager

Well, It's late and I've got some 'splaining to do, so I'll leave it at that and see what your response is. I will add this, though: a "super sentient" being is not necessary to whether or not your own being may (or may not) be "super" sentient.

If you think, therefore you is.

Amen.

Act on those beliefs absent compelling evidence and start a control cult, however, and I'll hunt you down (metaphorically speaking of course)

Photocrat

A theist would usually define omnipotent [and hence, supernatural] in the logical terms [nothing allowed that's not logically possible, since such 'things' can't rightfully be called things, anyhow, though they might hold out that if it were otherwise, it wouldn't really matter :]
[list]

• Why is a single God more reasonable than God(s)?
• Why is a loving God more reasonable than a malicious God?
• Why is a personal God more reasonable than an impersonal God?
• Why is an honest God more reasonable than a dishonest God?

For 1, Occam's razor almost certainly applies--just how many omnimaxes would you expect!? :] For 2 and 4, you can use the 'an omnimax god would have nothing to gain from doing otherwise' arguement. For 3, I suppose that could go either way, since such a god could do whatever they wanted :]

Jayhawker Soule

Most of the Gods populating the various pantheons were not viewed as omnipotent in any sense of the word. Your "omnipotent [and hence, supernatural]" comment has zero relevancy to the questions posed, and reflects little more than Judeo-Christian bias."Almost certainly"? Why might that be? And, upon what would you have me form my expections? What do you "expect" and why? Just because? Or is it because:

• Well, gee, the Supernatural should act just like the Natural except, well, you know, more Super.

Sorry, but Occam's Razor won't cut it.And, presumably, you got that from your Omnimax Psychology101 textbook.

• You're the one who decided upon an "omnimax god".
• You're the one who determined It's psychology.
• You're the one who insists the It acts only for gain.
• You're the one who implies a criteria for gain.

You're one hell of a prophet. Or, more likely, what you call an "argument" is simply your insistence that your fantasy conforms to your expectations.Thanks for giving God(s) some leeway.

Photocrat

I see that sarcasm escaped you, but the statement Occam made was not to multiply entities unless necessary. Unless you see some evidence for multiple omnimaxes, all things being equal, we should prefer the hypothesis that there's only one to the hypothesis that there's more than one [even if you don't buy the hypothesis that there are ANY :]

As for the rest, please tell me whether 'omnimax' implies 'rational' or not. An irrational omnimax might just as well do anything for no reason. If such a one exists, however, we should not expect the world to be as regular as it appears to be, since there are far more disordered ways than ordered ways in which the world could work :]

But I suppose that would tend to discredit your complaints about any assumptions that an omnimax would act in a way that makes any sense... :]