Rhea

If I had unequivocal "knowledge" of an omniscient & omnibenevolent god, I would do as she willed without it being a matter of "obeying" because an omniscient and omnibenevolent god would know the pain of not knowing the "why" of something and never inflict it. Hence I would _understand_ her wishes and hence have the _same_ wishes, thereby following them without it being a matter of obeying. I cannot imagine a scenario in which an omnibenevolent god would create a situation in which I desired something bad. That would hardly be benevolent!

luvluv, you're saying you would fly planes into a building if your god told you to?

Sojourner553

But one has to agree on the assumptions first.

I saw a great proof of God that went like this:

"If you just will agree with me that a definition of God assumes omniscience and omnibenevolence.... I can prove..."

The point is this: based on how one tailors one's "assumptions" one can virtually prove anything -- including the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.

How relevant is the exercise to imagine the world was controlled by Bunny Rabbits???

But that is not a realistic assumption given what we know of the nature of the world...so why go into obvious IMAGINARY exercises.

that is my point!

Sojourner

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

dk

Absolutely?
Is a universe where 2 + 2 = 5 possible?
Is it possible to doubt my own doubt?
Can two distinct things differ by nothing?
Reason gets a big boost when people realized their sense perceptions can be reliably fooled. Then sentimentality gets a big boost when people perceive the limits of reason. I think its fair to say, “some things are absolutely certain, but only to the extent people are predisposed to know.” Seems to me things solely seeded in the concrete world of perception, reason and sentimentality tend to degenerate into skepticism then dissolve into violence and subscription.
.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

raistlinjones

Dk,

Really, what you're asking seems to run further into philosophy of language than anything else. I'm sure Wittgenstein or Russell would have good answers for you (two huge names in modern P of L), but I unfortunately don't have much to say in response. I mean, I could easily say that 2 and 5 are just symbols, and as such can mean whatever I want them to mean. I could say that you're merely confusing the word "distinct" when you ask if two distinct objects could differ by nothing. But I'm not sure I'd be able to come up with any satisfying answers to your queries.

I could try, though. And despite my intellectual failings, there are others that struggle with these types of questions all the time, and so it is my conviction that you can, in fact, question rationality.

galiel

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

(Epicurus, 341-271 BCE)

dk

I don’t find 2 + 2 = 4, addition, number line, and the necessary axioms a challenge to linguistics. Why point me at logical positivists like Wittgenstein and Russell (Vienna Circle) for an answer anyway. Let me say it another way. I don’t see any real progress in ethics over the last 80 years under the tutelage of logical positivists. While technology and hard science seems to progress from paradigm to paradigm, I perceive ethics at a stand, or degenerate. I think its about time people entertain the possibility that living creatures, especially rational creatures, don’t operate under the same rigid rules that govern inanimate objects.

I would suggest its not "rationality" people question, but whether hard facts about real things contain rational universal principles. Clearly mathmematics does contain rational universal principles, but mathmatics is an abstract science.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I don't even obey myself without question.

I could certainly never obey a 'God' without lots of questions.

(I mean, 'God' doesn't even exist, and we're here, questioning...)

Keith.

raistlinjones

Wow, that's what Wittgenstein said too.

Note that all that is needed to question 2 + 2 = 4 is to question the axioms involved.

However, perhaps you're right in saying we can't really question rationality. The philosopher I said might have answers actually would disagree with the position I tried to take. Wittgenstein would say that any question we tried to form would be utter nonsense, and he's probably right. "Can two distinct things differ by nothing" certainly does sound like nonsense to me. So, fine, I'll give it to you - we can't question rationality.

dk

Well, we can question rationality, but only if we are rational, so the answer folds upon the questionaire. If an insane maniac asked, "can I question rationality", the answer is maybe, maybe not .

I think what gets lost in the nonsense is that mental concepts, structures and forms are universal while the laws of nature are finite. This doesn't change reality or rational human thought, but reflects upon the reality of human limitations. I personally don't like logical positivism because the Verfiication Principle fails its own measure.

jlowder

If this being is truly omnibenevolent, then by definition all of this being's commands would be morally good and hence you should obey its commands, including the command to restrain sex to marriage.