It is not logical to say that because God acts in a way you object to you no longer believe in God. Does the problem of evil negate the reasons why you believe in God
How would we categorize Spinoza's philosophy? Was he an atheist or a believer? I hope we can generate respectful and serious replies, instead of abuse. Thank you.
I dont think so. But i feel like it does go against the belief in an all good creator or in its omnipotence to make all things good or even in our capability in recognizing good.
@rafaelnunesduarte just because God isnt equal to the world/creation ontologically. To be fair this might not be obvious if you arent familiar with 3rd-5th century theology, but the Good is defined as BEING [one with] God, not as a distinct thing in itself. We reject any totally self-contained moral system, including divine command.
@@youssefsammouh501 interesting! Im not familiar with this theology. To be sure im following, you are saying that you understand God as not being omnipresent in this world? He is separated from this world that is kind of "in decay", for being absent of God? Kind of a neoplatonic view? As in being good is reuniting with the original idea that originated or inspired this world?
@rafaelnunesduarte its the classic eastern orthodox theology, but yes quite similar to neoplatonism (it was really developed in conversation with the neoplatonists so naturally even the jargon is similar) but also we do have major disagreements. Yes, God is totally transcendent (thats the separation from creation) and that alone would just mean that BEING Good (i.e being one with God) is just impossible, but what the neoplatonists dont have is the incarnation of God in Christ. This is why Christ is significant; in him the created human nature (essence) is invited to absolute unity with the divine essence. This is the theology of theosis, if u wanna check for yourself. So we say God is both totally transcendent and imminent.
You know the works of Wittgenstein essentially sum up to. that metaphysical discussion is more a discussion about language than any universal nature. religion tends to push more pataphysics than metaphysics when it establishes agents behind reality When it comes to morality I simply establish it as a goal based endeavor, similar to how chess while there are many options on how to play chess, the goal makes the difference between a good player and a bad one in how they go about reaching it. in that sense there is in fact at least a wrong way to behave if you want to engage in good morality because once you establish a goal there is a right and wrong way to move towards it, a goal such as the fulfillment of meta values- for a metaphysical realm seems fitting. I am referencing the video by Danny Duchamp dealing with nihilism (th-cam.com/video/OExAQkmBBkU/w-d-xo.html), Although simply put I have never seen the *point* to nihilism. (bumdatss) I would like to point out the "I don't see how it doesn't" does make that initial question an argument from ignorance. Notice I have given a completely secular view of morality that we can observe and learn more about that people like Matt Dilahunty or Sam Harris would not find enough wrong with to necessarily disagree and often do push something similar to it themselves. I would be curious with the CJ person as I do not see their posts, I was going to engage in some argumentative tomfoolery but it seems he is not in the comments, which is a shame AIDSPIGS are always fun to make fun of (Anti-intellectual demagogues spewing pseudo intellectual gibberish)
The argument that you have to lie to Nazis (which is de facto against Kant and his philosophy) is against moral law that you shall not lie (and against the Decalog). I have a feeling that skeptical theism is more on the trace of the Hippocratic Oath and the principle "First, do no harm"
I would argue that most classical theists have been anti-realists about morality, since they affirm divine command theory, and their response to the eutyphro dilemma is just that, DCT. Many of these problem of evil arguments is from people thinking God is good or benevolent without understanding what that's supposed to mean.
@@martinponce877 Here are a couple of classical theists, 1) the Asharites (Al Ghazali..), 2) the Christian Voluntarists (Occam..), 3) I would argue anyone that consistently holds to divine command theory supports my argument.
His three thesis are basically summed up that: god's plans are mysterious and we can't know his mysterious ways...didn't find any valuable contribution in this talk for the existence of a god in a universe filled with irrational suffering .
It provides one reason to disbelieve in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity. That your god fails miserably to help the people it promises to help in the bible is quite notable. I find that the utter lack of evidence for any essential event claimed in the bible is more than enough reason to disbelieve in christianity's imaginary friend. The same holds for other religions too.
Funny how the anti-theists only obsess about refuting Christianity, as though if they refute Christianity they refute every other religion. But they never go on debunk every other religion. It's very telling.
@@ACF1901 Poor chrsitian, so desperate to pretend he's a martyr. I'm more than happy to also show how Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, etc all fail just like your cult. I've done that quite consistently here on youtube, so you fail yet again. I do enjoyu showing how Islam is idiotic since it just riffs on the lies of judaism and christianity, and then adds its own silliness about flying ponies, a magic rock, etc. It's almost as amusing as meat cookies. "Funny how the anti-theists only obsess about refuting Christianity, as though if they refute Christianity they refute every other religion. But they never go on debunk every other religion."
It's telling of the person's background. Eg if they are of European descent Christianity is the doctrine of the society of which this person was born. Please engage in theistic conversation with a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Hindu. Those individuals who spent their core development years in a society dominated by one of the other major world religious doctrines will be oriented towards discussing that religion. Moreover, all of the major world religions have systems of proof for the existence of their god in a logical format eg St Augustine, Avicenna, Maimonides, Charvaka. It is not something distinct to Christianity in any way or form.@@ACF1901
It is not logical to say that because God acts in a way you object to you no longer believe in God. Does the problem of evil negate the reasons why you believe in God
How would we categorize Spinoza's philosophy? Was he an atheist or a believer?
I hope we can generate respectful and serious replies, instead of abuse.
Thank you.
I belive he is regarded as a pantheist, so, a beliver.
Atheist.
The speaker speaks of "I can't be forced to do something freely", have you heard of compatibilism? because that's probably what the Calvinist mean.
Thankyou for sharing your profound insights. That will probably get you an A * when you are old enough to sit your exams
I dont think so. But i feel like it does go against the belief in an all good creator or in its omnipotence to make all things good or even in our capability in recognizing good.
No, it doesnt
@@youssefsammouh501 how come?
@rafaelnunesduarte just because God isnt equal to the world/creation ontologically.
To be fair this might not be obvious if you arent familiar with 3rd-5th century theology, but the Good is defined as BEING [one with] God, not as a distinct thing in itself. We reject any totally self-contained moral system, including divine command.
@@youssefsammouh501 interesting! Im not familiar with this theology. To be sure im following, you are saying that you understand God as not being omnipresent in this world? He is separated from this world that is kind of "in decay", for being absent of God? Kind of a neoplatonic view? As in being good is reuniting with the original idea that originated or inspired this world?
@rafaelnunesduarte its the classic eastern orthodox theology, but yes quite similar to neoplatonism (it was really developed in conversation with the neoplatonists so naturally even the jargon is similar) but also we do have major disagreements.
Yes, God is totally transcendent (thats the separation from creation) and that alone would just mean that BEING Good (i.e being one with God) is just impossible, but what the neoplatonists dont have is the incarnation of God in Christ. This is why Christ is significant; in him the created human nature (essence) is invited to absolute unity with the divine essence. This is the theology of theosis, if u wanna check for yourself.
So we say God is both totally transcendent and imminent.
Maybe god just doesn't care. Maybe it simply doesn't have the power to interfer. Maybe god is evil and enjoys suffering.
Does skeptical theism not imply moral skepticism? I don’t see how it doesn't...
You know the works of Wittgenstein essentially sum up to. that metaphysical discussion is more a discussion about language than any universal nature.
religion tends to push more pataphysics than metaphysics when it establishes agents behind reality
When it comes to morality I simply establish it as a goal based endeavor, similar to how chess while there are many options on how to play chess, the goal makes the difference between a good player and a bad one in how they go about reaching it.
in that sense there is in fact at least a wrong way to behave if you want to engage in good morality because once you establish a goal there is a right and wrong way to move towards it, a goal such as the fulfillment of meta values- for a metaphysical realm seems fitting. I am referencing the video by Danny Duchamp dealing with nihilism (th-cam.com/video/OExAQkmBBkU/w-d-xo.html), Although simply put I have never seen the *point* to nihilism. (bumdatss)
I would like to point out the "I don't see how it doesn't" does make that initial question an argument from ignorance.
Notice I have given a completely secular view of morality that we can observe and learn more about that people like Matt Dilahunty or Sam Harris would not find enough wrong with to necessarily disagree and often do push something similar to it themselves.
I would be curious with the CJ person as I do not see their posts, I was going to engage in some argumentative tomfoolery but it seems he is not in the comments, which is a shame AIDSPIGS are always fun to make fun of (Anti-intellectual demagogues spewing pseudo intellectual gibberish)
The argument that you have to lie to Nazis (which is de facto against Kant and his philosophy) is against moral law that you shall not lie (and against the Decalog). I have a feeling that skeptical theism is more on the trace of the Hippocratic Oath and the principle "First, do no harm"
I think it does
@@PP266 6:53
I would argue that most classical theists have been anti-realists about morality, since they affirm divine command theory, and their response to the eutyphro dilemma is just that, DCT. Many of these problem of evil arguments is from people thinking God is good or benevolent without understanding what that's supposed to mean.
You know nothing about classical theism, then, if you’d argue this
@@martinponce877 what is your counter argument then
@@martinponce877 Here are a couple of classical theists, 1) the Asharites (Al Ghazali..), 2) the Christian Voluntarists (Occam..), 3) I would argue anyone that consistently holds to divine command theory supports my argument.
His three thesis are basically summed up that: god's plans are mysterious and we can't know his mysterious ways...didn't find any valuable contribution in this talk for the existence of a god in a universe filled with irrational suffering .
It provides one reason to disbelieve in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity. That your god fails miserably to help the people it promises to help in the bible is quite notable.
I find that the utter lack of evidence for any essential event claimed in the bible is more than enough reason to disbelieve in christianity's imaginary friend. The same holds for other religions too.
Funny how the anti-theists only obsess about refuting Christianity, as though if they refute Christianity they refute every other religion. But they never go on debunk every other religion.
It's very telling.
@@ACF1901 Poor chrsitian, so desperate to pretend he's a martyr. I'm more than happy to also show how Islam, Judaism, Hindusim, etc all fail just like your cult. I've done that quite consistently here on youtube, so you fail yet again. I do enjoyu showing how Islam is idiotic since it just riffs on the lies of judaism and christianity, and then adds its own silliness about flying ponies, a magic rock, etc. It's almost as amusing as meat cookies.
"Funny how the anti-theists only obsess about refuting Christianity, as though if they refute Christianity they refute every other religion. But they never go on debunk every other religion."
It's telling of the person's background. Eg if they are of European descent Christianity is the doctrine of the society of which this person was born.
Please engage in theistic conversation with a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or Hindu. Those individuals who spent their core development years in a society dominated by one of the other major world religious doctrines will be oriented towards discussing that religion.
Moreover, all of the major world religions have systems of proof for the existence of their god in a logical format eg St Augustine, Avicenna, Maimonides, Charvaka. It is not something distinct to Christianity in any way or form.@@ACF1901
@@nathanielziering buddhists usually don't believe in God and thus have no such system but otherwise, yeah.
They have similar flaws