A thought about our significance

[JimL]

How does that follow if God's knowledge is contingent on our free choices? Simple knowledge does not force us or cause us to act.

Egad, this is one of the reasons I didn't want to go down this road again. I, and many others have explained this to you a thousand times over seer and it never seems to get through to you. Gods knowledge would not itself be the cause, Gods knowledge of the future would only be the proof of the cause. Lets say you create a mechanical toy of sorts, and because of your engineering expertise in the design of the toy you know exactly what that toy will do in time. What would be the cause of that toys future, and how would we know what the cause was? Would you say that the cause was the creators knowledge, or that the cause was the creator? The creator, right? And how would you know that?

[Just Passing Through]

[carpedm9587]

My use of she/he/it (and I try to be consistent, but don't always succeed) is to respect the varying beliefs about this god. Some see god as male, some see god as female, and some argue that such a being is genderless. Since I am not in a position to choose which view is correct, I use all three pronouns. Most of the time, I try to just use "god."

[/FONT][/SIZE]

You believe such a god exists. I believe he/she/it does not. Ergo, I believe you are worshiping a "false god" in so far as you are worshipping one that does not exist. Several nuanced responses I received here made me realize I was looking at the question from the perspective of one who believes this god does not exist - which makes the human belief a somewhat arrogant one (that there is a cosmic being that is focused on humanity so intimately). If you take a moment and consider the question from the atheist perspective, someone claiming the existence of an allpowerful creator of all that exists who intimately loves and cares for him, in this vast cosmos, is a fairly arrogant position.

But if you take it from the position that this god DOES exist, the view can change as it has been described in other responses here, because, as you say, it is about what this god conceives, not what the human conceives. I also thought the response about humanity being halfway between the infinitessimal and the cosmic was a marvelously articulated reality. Elegant, actually.

As for Jesus, I just want to clarify that I have never believed him to be a fictional, invented character. I do not believe he was a god or the son of one, but I do believe he existed, that he was a rabbi in the Judaic tradition, that he was an itinerrant preacher, and that he was executed by the romans via crucifixion. There appears to be more than adequate historical evidence to substantitate those beliefs.

Thank you for your concession.

Which is to say that, apart from God, meaning or purpose are subjectively created and defined.

Actually, I think they are subjectively defined with or without a god.

The same may also be said for morality.

The same applies here.

When my subjectively defined morality conflicts with your subjectively defined morality, grave problems may arise.

They can. Seer and I have engaged in a lengthy discussion about this.

A sociopath, for example, may find a sense of meaning and satisfaction in torturing and killing an untold number of persons. S/he does what is right in his/her own eyes, as you do.

Correct.

You, however, may object to his/her behavior, as you perceive it to be immoral. His/her behaviour is justified in his/her own eyes. As morality is not and cannot be absolute according to consistent atheistic thought, who is to say ultimately what is right or wrong?[/SIZE][/FONT]

As I have said to Seer multiple times: no one. Because the morality is subjective, there is no "ultimately" right or wrong. Given your nuanced responses so far, I have hopes you may be able to understand this response. I never had the sense that Seer did. What you have said is not an objection, Rem. It's a repetition of the definition of subjective/relative morality. By definition, it does not have an "ultimately" wrong. Individuals subjectively arrive at their moral codes on the basis of what they value, and reason. What they value is influenced by a number of factors, including family, social groups, community, country, reasoning, and experiences in life. So it is entirely possible (and fairly common) for two people to have moral codes that differ in at least some respects.

[JimL]

What I was refering to was god, if there is no change in gods knowledge concerning his creation, then, ergo, free will is logically impossible.

I think that was basically what I said, you believe, but you have no logical basis by which to give explanation to the belief.

That's a contradiction, and you know there is a law against that, right? Also, even if free will is emergent, which i'm not so sure is not the truth, if god created us and knows our futures prior to our acting them out, then free will is still impossible. There are only 2 logical ways a creator could know the future of his creation, the creation would have either to be complete and unchanging, in which case god could see it in its fullness, or its future would need be the result of design, or caused by the designer.

Yes, but all of that is just saying "I have no idea" but I believe it. That's fine, but lets not pretend it's reasoned conclusion.

[seer]

Egad, this is one of the reasons I didn't want to go down this road again. I, and many others have explained this to you a thousand times over seer and it never seems to get through to you. Gods knowledge would not itself be the cause, Gods knowledge of the future would only be the proof of the cause. Lets say you create a mechanical toy of sorts, and because of your engineering expertise in the design of the toy you know exactly what that toy will do in time. What would be the cause of that toys future, and how would we know what the cause was? Would you say that the cause was the creators knowledge, or that the cause was the creator? The creator, right? And how would you know that?

That makes no sense Jim if God's knowledge is contingent on our free choices. A toy, a machine, would not have a will to choose.

[seer]

As I have said to Seer multiple times: no one. Because the morality is subjective, there is no "ultimately" right or wrong. Given your nuanced responses so far, I have hopes you may be able to understand this response. I never had the sense that Seer did.

Of course I did, my point was that relativism and its consequence are not psychologically livable. Men need moral certainty, like human rights being God given, or that there are universal ethical wrongs/rights. Now you may see these things as no more than useful fictions, I see them intuitions that connect us to transcendent truths.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I did, my point was that relativism and its consequence are not psychologically livable.

A claim made false by my existence and those who, like me, live out a subjective morality with no psychological problem whatsoever.

Men need moral certainty, like human rights being God given, or that there are universal ethical wrongs/rights. Now you may see these things as no more than useful fictions, I see them intuitions that connect us to transcendent truths.

And this is a claim you cannot substantiate, Seer. I realize you believe it, but it seems to me that you believe it because you need it to be true. My existence, and those like me, suggest it is not actually true.

[Roy]

Men need moral certainty, like human rights being God given, or that there are universal ethical wrongs/rights.

I don't.

[Just Passing Through]

[seer]

A claim made false by my existence and those who, like me, live out a subjective morality with no psychological problem whatsoever.

Except Carp your moral sense was formed in a culture awashed in Christian ethics and grounded in the concept that rights are God given. I do wonder if the majority of a culture took relativism to its logical end what that society would look like.

And this is a claim you cannot substantiate, Seer. I realize you believe it, but it seems to me that you believe it because you need it to be true. My existence, and those like me, suggest it is not actually true.

Right and you can not demonstrate that it is not true. Remember our discussion about free will? You believe in free will because of your personal experience, nothing more. People also believe in God because of personal experience and because it makes sense of our existence and life in general. Without that, to me, it all ends in absurdity.

[seer]

I don't.

I was speaking of morally rational people...

[carpedm9587]

I was speaking of morally rational people...

Seer - really? So a person is morally rational only if they agree with your view of morality?

[carpedm9587]

Except Carp your moral sense was formed in a culture awashed in Christian ethics and grounded in the concept that rights are God given. I do wonder if the majority of a culture took relativism to its logical end what that society would look like.

I have noted, multiple times, that individual moral frameworks are strongly influenced by many factors, including religious/social influences. You declare those "god given," and that aligns with your belief in a god. From the perspective of a subjective moralist with no belief in a god - it's just another group influencing the moral framework with widely held moral norms...which have changed over time.

Right and you can not demonstrate that it is not true. Remember our discussion about free will? You believe in free will because of your personal experience, nothing more. People also believe in God because of personal experience and because it makes sense of our existence and life in general. Without that, to me, it all ends in absurdity.

Actually - I have pointed out multiple times how the presence or absence of a god does not make morality any less subjective. Moral codes are derived by sentient minds based on what they value. If your god exists, your god has a moral code subjective to it. I have a moral code subjective to me. You have one subjective to you. One of the things you value is your god - and you apparently value this being beyond anything else, so there is little surprise that your moral code is strongly influenced by the moral code you think arises from this god. It is still YOUR choice to align your moral code to this god's code. It is a subjective choice. It cannot be otherwise. No one chose your moral framework but you.

From my perspective, of course, you are aligning your moral code to the documented subjective code of a particular religious community.

[JimL]

That makes no sense Jim if God's knowledge is contingent on our free choices.

Yes, well you keep saying if god's knowledge is contingent, but gods knowledge can't both be omniscient and contingent. You need to either make up your mind, or explain yourself.

A toy, a machine, would not have a will to choose.

I used that as an example seer. So, okay, lets say that god created you, and because of his engineering expertise and the knowledge he has of his design, that he knows exactly what your future choices will be. What would be the cause of those choices? Would the cause be gods knowledge, or would the cause be god? Do you get the point now? No one is trying to argue that knowledge causes the future, that's either just a misunderstanding on your part, or a canard, that for some reason, you keep bringing up.! Obviously the cause would be god, not gods knowledge!

[seer]

Seer - really? So a person is morally rational only if they agree with your view of morality?

Look at it this way, if you don't believe that gassing Jewish children is universally and objectively wrong then yes, I question your moral sanity.