51
   

How can a good God allow suffering

 
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2018 05:25 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Given that we are a mere hundred years or so since the thinging of 'the electron', can you guarantee that those things in your above post will still have explanatory currency in a hundred years time ?
Yes. Because, unlike things popping into and out of existence without a logical explanation, in my scenario they always exist and reality is logical and consistent and matches all the observations that science can currently make.

Quote:
If in doubt, consider the fate of 'phlogisten' or 'the aether' or even 'the four elements'.


All of those proposals were missing huge amounts of information that was obtained by more accurate measuring devices and complex mathematical models (quantum mechanics and relativity). They were explained away by quantum mechanics when our measurements became accurate enough to reveal the electron, quark, higgs boson and the physical constants (Planck's constant, fine structure constant etc. . . .) and the curvature of the space time continuum (relativity). We now know these things are real and must use naive realism to imagine how to arrange the particles and virtual particles of the universe in a way that all the constants and other properties of the universe we now know are correct are fulfilled.

If, you imagine a person arranging all the particles that construct space and matter in our universe like a child arranging blocks or marbles, it can be accomplished. If you imagine them arranging themselves or just popping into existence in the right order by chance it is not possible.

So, why not use a philosophical technique that can be successful?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2018 10:17 am
@fresco,
Quote:
raw senses do NOT always correspond with output readings of transducers as in the case of 'color vision' for example.

I guess you are used to people letting you get away with meaningless statements like this.

The point you failed to respond to is that our senses give us a consistent representation of the physical reality around us even if it is only a subset of that reality. It is still a valid subset and appropriate for using in making decisions in my life. If I am uncertain about the location of subatomic particles, it causes me no suffering.

Therefore, if you are suffering about such matters, it is not God's fault.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2018 02:03 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I guess you are used to people letting you get away with meaningless statements like this.

No, I am used to people who have read the literature and understand that the topic 'color vision' is taken as model for general debate in the philosophy of perception. For example, the non-isomorphism of color perception (phenomena) with physical parameters like wavelength was a major reason why Wittgenstein rejected his earlier logical positivism, and has since given rise to 'embodied cognition theory'.
Empirical evidence supports the view that what we call 'reality' is a species specific and culturally affected construction, NOT merely a representative mapping. Indeed, language itself, the currency of 'thinking' is no longer considered to be representative of 'an independent reality'.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Dec, 2018 07:03 pm
@fresco,
Yeah, I know, the sky really isn't blue.
Regardless of the mechanism, we accurately see the frequency representation of the total light entering our eyes within the bandwidth we are able to perceive. And we are smart enough to look for the reasons behind it.

I don't see a great philosophical problem here. Wittgenstein was an idiot if he let that sway him.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 02:22 am
@Leadfoot,
Oh dear ! Looks like you have caught a touch of Grumpyitis !

Since you don't know what you are talking about I'll simply leave you with the thought that your 'idiot' believed in God like you ! Shocked
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 05:48 am
@fresco,
It is not a culturally accepted construction. The construction has a culturally accepted interpretation of the sensory data. And when it comes to looking at the universe as a whole, or at the quantum level, the data is incomplete Because of the limitations of our sensory equipment not, because the data doesn't exist.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 07:48 am
@brianjakub,
No. You still don't get it ! Data do NOT exist independent of the observer who defies them as such. You are perhaps unknowingly playing the Bishop Berkeley game of evoking a 'God' as an 'ultimate observer.'
'Culture' implies mutual concepts transmitted via a common language. Although many of what we call 'scientific concepts' have more or less got temporary universal agreement ( the culture free meta language of mathematics is one reason for this) that agreement is still subject to paradigmatic shifts. (KUHN ...a paradigm has a cultural dimension). We have already discussed 'gravity' as an example of that.
It is worth bearing in mind one of Nietzche's arguments with respect to evolving 'understanding of the universe'....no description is any closer to 'reality' than any other. Some descriptions are merely more useful than others for particular purposes. This is why pragmatists say it is futile talking about 'reality' at all.


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 07:59 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I'll simply leave you with the thought that your 'idiot' believed in God like you !

Another meaningless statement (extra credit for inclusion of a falsehood as well).

There are many idiots in the world. Some of them believe in God, some don't. You've been here long enough to know that.
You've also studied Wittgenstein enough to know his 'God' did not resemble mine in any way.

Here's a summary from the web of what he believed. As you have already indicated many times, his God is just like yours.

Quote:
Wittgenstein held a non-cognitivist view regarding religion. He thought that idea of the existence of God was not meant to be taken literally, insofar as it might make a claim about a real being.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 09:18 am
@Leadfoot,
Oh !....not such an idiot then ! Smile
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 10:15 am
@fresco,
Whether he was an idiot or not is irrelevant. His 'God' is nothing like mine, so your lie is still there.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2018 12:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Clearly irony is ironically 'not your cup of tea' (Apologies from a Brit).
You seem to have taken my characterization of W seriously, when I was merely obliquely attacking your potential dismissal of an acknowledged genius as 'an idiot'.
Let us just say he was not an atheist much to the bemusement of Bertrand Russell, whom W broke away from in his later work on language. It is this fundamental philosophical shift in focus on language (Die Kehre) which links phenomenology, pragmatism and constructivism as the 'post-modernism' movement which seriously questions how we use words like 'reality' and 'truth'. Philosophically 'savvy' theoretical scientists are aware of these issues and often highlight 'elegance' or 'beauty' as the more important aspects of their work.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2018 07:49 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I was merely obliquely attacking your potential dismissal of an acknowledged genius as 'an idiot'.

'Genius status' is no assurance of not being an idiot. And you may include yourself.

You may take that as an oblique compliment.
0 Replies
 
NO-NAME
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 01:59 pm
@rosborne979,
This type of mindset is going to be the downfall of Western Society what I mean but this is projecting the mentality of willingness to discuss and adapt ideals and understandings but with the underlining moral Rule and boundary of understanding that is not to be touched and this is done unconsciously due to social programming.

what I'm talking about is the fact that you think unicorns are Fairy Tail mythical creatures when in fact they were alive and well up until about a hundred years ago their cousin is still alive and well and just called the bicornis or rhinoceros as we know it here in the United States but a unicorn is a one horned rhinoceros. This is also a good example of white philosophy is dead or at least dying.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 02:35 pm
@NO-NAME,
I have a pet unicorn in the bedroom. But I understand where you are coming from.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Dec, 2018 08:16 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
No. You still don't get it ! Data do NOT exist independent of the observer who defies them as such. You are perhaps unknowingly playing the Bishop Berkeley game of evoking a 'God' as an 'ultimate observer.'


Why is it a game when it is a paradigm that better explains the data when. . .

Quote:
It is worth bearing in mind one of Nietzche's arguments with respect to evolving 'understanding of the universe'....no description is any closer to 'reality' than any other. Some descriptions are merely more useful than others for particular purposes. This is why pragmatists say it is futile talking about 'reality' at all.


Relativity is more useful in describing gravity than Newtonian physics because as a paradigm it is more accurate in explaining what we observe.

If the first paradigm does not explain what we observe (Newtonian Physics) as accurately as the second paradigm (Relativity) then why can't it logically be assumed that Relativity is paradigm closer to explaining reality than Newtonian Physics?

Are you saying pragmatists have an innate inability to make logical value judgments when comparing the success of two paradigms and therefore they find it a futile quest to draw a logical conclusion about reality?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 07:19 am
@brianjakub,
Pragmatists make judgements about the utility and elegance of paradigms. The word 'reality' adds nothing to those judgements. It simply acts as a marker of contextual agreement between observers as to 'what is the case'.

There is no point in pursuing an argument in which fail to understand that your position is based on a number of idiosyncratic untestable axioms. You are clearly enthralled by the 'patterns' humans observe in nature, but you fail to take account that observation is active i.e. 'constructive', not passive. Different brands of theistic spectacles are instrumental in constructing different attempts at 'the bigger picture' aka 'explanation'', It is not a matter of 'logic'' -only a matter of choice of axioms.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:01 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Pragmatists make judgements about the utility and elegance of paradigms.


I agree completely because judgements about utility are logical value judgement.

Quote:
The word 'reality' adds nothing to those judgements. It simply acts as a marker of contextual agreement between observers as to 'what is the case'.


The word reality is necessary to put the paradigms in the proper context to make more accurate value judgments. It makes the markers we observe more permanent and accurate because science agrees they are accurate and permanent as far as our judgements about what we observe today are telling us. (when I say permanent I mean the laws of physics and the nature of matter has not changed since a short time after the Big Bang.

Quote:
There is no point in pursuing an argument in which fail to understand that your position is based on a number of idiosyncratic untestable axioms. You are clearly enthralled by the 'patterns' humans observe in nature,


It is hard to discuss observation with someone who refuses to recognize the permanence of certain markers and patterns that puts the information in context which then causes him to eliminate certain philosophical view points that can lead to a more complete understanding.

Quote:
but you fail to take account that observation is active i.e. 'constructive', not passive. Different brands of theistic spectacles are instrumental in constructing different attempts at 'the bigger picture' aka 'explanation'', It is not a matter of 'logic'' -only a matter of choice of axioms.


Could you please observe a "3 car garage" into existence for me then?

My wife and are struggling to observe it into existence with our constructive observance.

If, you are so sure that, your "active observing" is constructing the entire universe into existence, a garage should be simple. That axiom could prove to be very profitable if you can follow building codes accurately.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 01:04 pm
@brianjakub,
Permanence is a myth. All is in flux. The word refers to the expectation of repetition of observer-observed states. Permanence equates to continued functionality relative to our lifespans.The abstract permanence of 'words' fools naive realists into thinking that 'things' denoted by words are permanent.
Observer and observed are inextricable. 'Existence' is another word related to the expectancy of mutual observer-observed states which naive realists cannot understand because they axiomatically think there is 'a world' independent of observers. You only need to look at species specific perceptual systems ( e.g. starving frogs failing to 'observe' dead insects, or fish 'feeling' prey by electromagnetic interaction) to understand that our evolving 'world' is a parochial construction, albeit a useful one (we hope!).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 01:37 pm
@brianjakub,
BTW 'Construction' involves interaction of builder (observer) with materials (selective aspects of potentially infinite observed states). What is 'constructed' requires a 'purpose' and materials are selected accordingly.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2018 03:02 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Permanence is a myth. All is in flux. The word refers to the expectation of repetition of observer-observed states. Permanence equates to continued functionality relative to our lifespans.


Most of the atoms in the universe have been around for millions to billions of years. If you would like we could replace "permanence of the information stored in atoms" to "information that changes so little over time we can take it out of the discussion most of the time" if it makes it easier for you to accept.

Quote:
Observer and observed are inextricable.


For discussion's sake we as observers cannot be viewed as permanent but the information stored in atoms can be viewed as permanent.

Quote:
'Existence' is another word related to the expectancy of mutual observer-observed states which naive realists cannot understand because they axiomatically think there is 'a world' independent of observers.


As a naive realist and idealist myself, I subscribe to all the interpretations of physics and believe there is a paradigm that combines all into a coherent explanation.

Therefore I believe every quark or electron is a permanent universe, contained inside a universe we call atoms(held together by the strong nuclear force which is fairly permanent) which is then contained inside of universes we call large pieces of matter that are held together by the weak-electro force (that is even less permanent) that floats in the entire known universe

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/23/2019 at 07:07:02