I'm Starting To Disbeleive In God.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

- Why did God create it such, or create it as such?

I don't know, but I feel that some ideas are better than others. It's what I've identified as one of my main lifelong questions. There is the possibility that such a question is even meaningless, that there is no "why" (just as there is no "why" in 'why is 1+1=2?'), but I am not convinced.

I have some sympathy for the idea that God wished to create a being who could speak the 'moral language', who could be good and who could be bad, which would then give rise to moral codes, law, crime and punishment, and of course self-sacrifice and justice. Angels would just act naturally according to the reason God gives them. There would be no room for divergence, since there is only one impulse, which is rational.

I'd repeat the same points on this ultra-significant "why"-question:

1.

We don't blame dentists for pulling out teeth or drilling into the cusp if it will only beautify or heal the patient's mouth.

2.

If we find a meaning for the world, we will better understand "why". If we understand that the dentist is not harming but healing, then we will be accepting of the pain.

3.

Finding whether there is a meaning to the world, and what that meaning is, is the single most important discovery a human being can make.

4.

Until we find the meaing, we are invited, by religion, to trust that the world has a meaning, to protect us from despair, nihilism or egoism.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

Alright, so we are concluding the discussion in just about the same place as we have started. Or so it appears. 5 Pages later and an original post buried and forgotten.

But thats ok. Ill be on my way now. Its been a pleasure as usual Jebreil.

[ShiaBen]

God gives purpose to life, without God, there is no purpose to life.

What's the point if everyone in the planet was rich?

There would be no challenge or mental stimulation.

We'd all sit back like a bunch of walruses and bask in the sun and rot to death in a disgusting manner.

[iDevonian]

God gives purpose to life, without God, there is no purpose to life.

What's the point if everyone in the planet was rich?

There would be no challenge or mental stimulation.

We'd all sit back like a bunch of walruses and bask in the sun and rot to death in a disgusting manner.

part of our discussion included the question of how heaven exists. Whats the point of heaven if everyone in heaven lives as rich people with virgins? Wheres the mental stimulation in that? And yet, that is the superior existence.

[Guest Jebreil]

Alright, so we are concluding the discussion in just about the same place as we have started. Or so it appears. 5 Pages later and an original post buried and forgotten.

But thats ok. Ill be on my way now. Its been a pleasure as usual Jebreil.

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

But together we have come to the conclusion that we have choices in a vast majority of day-to-day cases and we ourselves, and not God, are praiseworthy or blameworthy because of them.

I'm afraid that's the only point I was trying to discuss, prompted by the analogy of the blind man and the hole.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

But together we have come to the conclusion that we have choices in a vast majority of day-to-day cases and we ourselves, and not God, are praiseworthy or blameworthy because of them.

I'm afraid that's the only point I was trying to discuss, prompted by the analogy of the blind man and the hole.

I disagree. From the way I have viewed the discussion, we dont really know how our environment came to be in the way it has. And so, God may or may not be to blame. And in all honesty, i dont think anyone knows the answers to the questions we were discussing. Furthermore, being a non believer, i dont blame God because I dont believe in God, I dont even consider Gods existence in the way you do, if I ever do.

You are the believer and you are free to believe in whatever way you do, but I personally feel as if I am left in the same place we started. Sure I may have some additional options and non conclusive answers to some hypothetical questions about something I may decide to believe in. But right now...hypothetical, non conclusive, possible questions of the future...do not mean too much to me, especially when we dont even know one of the most important questions of the subject, that is, why does it all exist the way it does.

In my opinion, the easiest solution and the most reasonable one, is to become a non believer of whatever concepts about God people are passing around here. It is the theists that are believing in things when they clearly dont understand them. And I dont mean that the best answer is to become an atheist, but I think its a bit silly people sit around and toss these ideas around for hours, just to come up with an answer that doesnt tell them anything. Only in religion can you spend so much time on concepts that never bring about application. Or rather than spending this kind of time, you can throw it all away and start from scratch as a non believer in concepts that contradict eachother or lack solutions.

Edited February 25, 2012 by iDevonian

[Lanatin]

Now that wasted chat is over, i'll pick up where we left off.

I disagree with that, these "good" alternatives may be few and far between. For example..i mentioned this before, a starving kid in africa. steel food, or starve to death...wheres the good alternative? A boy raised by thugs, from birth taught to act a certain way...not much of an alternative there either. Farming animals so we can slaughter and eat them...well...not much of an alternative there either.

Children who's only alternative is death and haven't matured with any discipline, patience and wisdom aren't responsible for anything...that's the point. And you still haven't fully grasped what I said in my previous post; the beauty of life is that every action has consequences and boys who grow up in the thug life taste the consequences of their actions and are able to reflect on the status quo itself. Maturity leads to intellectual independance, regardless of whether actions are constrained by your parents or not. Of course if he's compelled to the point of torture from the higher powers in his domestic life he isn't responsible for anything. And eating meat has no moral dilemma.

[iDevonian]

Now that wasted chat is over, i'll pick up where we left off.

Children who's only alternative is death and haven't matured with any discipline, patience and wisdom aren't responsible for anything...that's the point. And you still haven't fully grasped what I said in my previous post; the beauty of life is that every action has consequences and boys who grow up in the thug life taste the consequences of their actions and are able to reflect on the status quo itself. Maturity leads to intellectual independance, regardless of whether actions are constrained by your parents or not. Of course if he's compelled to the point of torture from the higher powers in his domestic life he isn't responsible for anything. And eating meat has no moral dilemma.

I think you are assuming there is something to be responsible for, in the eyes of God. That there is some sort of overall moral standard or standard of responsibility that one must follow for some unknown reason which will relate to some universal test. The test has hypothetical rules which based on your own opinion, you decide how certain events fit within that rule book. Then when the discussion is over and its time to respond, you act like you actually understand it.

Even though, I gauruntee you have no better understanding of it than anyone else in this room. So rather than believing that I am not grasping what youre saying, maybe I just disagree and im moving your commentary to the side while I consider options given by other people that seem to run closer to what I am looking for.

Now If you would like, we can take time to talk about your ideas. With our previous discussion closing out, it wouldnt be a problem starting up another one based on your opinion, rather than mine or Jebreils or whomever elses.

As a response for your actual statement though...

ok and? Ok so children who are ignorant of concepts are not responsible or guilty or to blame if they happen to play with a poisonous snake and get killed. Ok, so what more can you tell me beyond what we have already discussed here?

Edited February 25, 2012 by iDevonian

[Lanatin]

I think you are assuming there is something to be responsible for, in the eyes of God. That there is some sort of overall moral standard or standard of responsibility that one must follow for some unknown reason which will relate to some universal test. The test has hypothetical rules which based on your own opinion, you decide how certain events fit within that rule book. Then when the discussion is over and its time to respond, you act like you actually understand it.

Even though, I gauruntee you have no better understanding of it than anyone else in this room. So rather than believing that I am not grasping what youre saying, maybe I just disagree and im moving your commentary to the side while I consider options being given by other people.

Now If you would like, we can take time to talk about your ideas. With our previous discussion closing out, it wouldnt be a problem starting up another one based on your opinion, rather than mine or Jebreils or whomever elses.

I'm fully aware you dont believe in any revealed scripture or a personal God; we're speaking on hypothetical grounds on supposing if God made the whole world around...so i'm showing you the perspective from that certain viewpoint in the world. I'm giving you the empirical facts of life, try to respond to it instead of going on an off topic rant.

[iDevonian]

I'm fully aware you dont believe in any revealed scripture or a personal God; we're speaking on hypothetical grounds on supposing if God made the whole world around...so i'm showing you the perspective from that certain viewpoint in the world. I'm giving you the empirical facts of life, try to respond to it instead of going on an off topic rant.

I did respond to it, and my responses are on point. I tend to edit my posts a lot, so hold your horses next time.

[Lanatin]

ok and? Ok so children who are ignorant of concepts are not responsible or guilty or to blame if they happen to play with a poisonous snake and get killed. Ok, so what more can you tell me beyond what we have already discussed here?

Everyone has a role to play in this world and the role of the parents is to keep their eyes on the child and take good care of him; the child isn't guilty of anything, the blame lays on the parents and their appalling lack of attention on their blissfully ignorant progeny. My previous posts were in reference to the claim that the morality of the thug life is totally indebted to the parents, and you suddenly jumped to the issue of potentially harmful scenarios :S

Edited February 25, 2012 by La'nat Ma Man

[iDevonian]

Everyone has a role to play in this world and the role of the parents is to keep their eyes on the child and take good care of him; the child isn't guilty of anything, the blame lays on the parents and their appalling lack of attention on their blissfully ignorant progeny. My previous posts were in reference to the claim that the morality of the thug life is totally indebted to the parents, and you suddenly jumped to the issue of potentially harmful scenarios :S

I didnt jump to the issue, its the same issue, i just jumped to the conclusion. We have already discussed all of this. Often you cant really blame the parents either, so I skipped passed blaming them, and i simply gave a generic situation (also previously discussed), just to bring your point to a conclusion.

Again, give me something that we havent already discussed.

Here, we can take it step by step, and lets see how far we go. I agree that the parents would be moreso to blame for certain situations than the children for events that the children are ignorant toward. Ok, so now what?

Edited February 25, 2012 by iDevonian

[Lanatin]

I didnt jump to the issue, its the same issue, i just jumped to the conclusion. We have already discussed all of this. Often you cant really blame the parents either, so I skipped passed blaming them, and i simply gave a generic situation (also previously discussed), just to bring your point to a conclusion.

Again, give me something that we havent already discussed.

Here, we can take it step by step, and lets see how far we go. I agree that the parents would be moreso to blame for certain situations than the children for events that the children are ignorant toward. Ok, so now what?

The whole discussion is centering around whether God is to blame for the evil in this world since He (hypothetically speaking) made it all. I said God should rightfully be considered responsible for the innate nature of man which gives him discretion, humility and the ability to reflect on the ramifications of all our actions. To be more blunt, i'm saying the maturity of a human is the stage in life when we become accountable since we have been brought up with the consequences of all our deeds born out of ignorance. Since we see the consequences that relate not only to us but to society, we are ultimately to blame if we opt for the naughty way; it is in our natural disposition to detect the right from wrong. We have been given enough lessons from our past, so the guilt lies on us if we decide to ignore these lessons and become screwups.

And parents are to blame, if they're cognizant of the fact that they're stepping in a hazardous area it's their responsibility to keep their kids away from all of it and have them locked up at home like a good wife should be.

[iDevonian]

The whole discussion is centering around whether God is to blame for the evil in this world since He (hypothetically speaking) made it all. I said God should rightfully be considered responsible for the innate nature of man which gives him discretion, humility and the ability to reflect on the ramifications of all our actions. To be more blunt, i'm saying the maturity of a human is the stage in life when we become accountable since we have been brought up with the consequences of all our deeds born out of ignorance. Since we see the consequences that relate not only to us but to society, we are ultimately to blame if we opt for the naughty way; it is in our natural disposition to detect the right from wrong. We have been given enough lessons from our past, so the guilt lies on us if we decide to ignore these lessons and become screwups.

And parents are to blame, if they're cognizant of the fact that they're stepping in a hazardous area it's their responsibility to keep their kids away from all of it and have them locked up at home like a good wife should be.

haha. Ya all this is fine. I still want to know why God created such an environment then assuming he did. As opposed to one without conflict and faults and screwups and pain and suffering etc.

Edited February 25, 2012 by iDevonian

[MysticKnight]

haha. Ya all this is fine. I still want to know why God created such an environment then assuming he did. As opposed to one without conflict and faults and screwups and pain and suffering etc.

I can't say I know why for sure, but I give an explanation as to why in the "theodicy" thread.

Edited February 25, 2012 by MysticKnight

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

This might be uncharacteristically blunt of me, but I don't know of a better way of saying it, despite my intention not to come across arrogant.

I find your response equivalent to a chess player overturning the chessboard midgame right after accepting that the King is mate.

I wanted you to move from effectively saying "we are not blameworthy for our actions since we are manipulated that way" to saying "there are somethings for which we are blameworthy by our own choices". You did make such a move, as is evident from some of your responses. There's no point in denying it and saying, "we're essentially left where we started."

The question of whether we have choice and whether we can be blameworthy is a separate issue from why God created us and why He created us with choice.

We know that John F Kennedy was assassinated but we don't really know why. Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean we're wrong to see that JFK was shot.

So, your rationale for overturning the chessboard is unreasonable.

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

This might be uncharacteristically blunt of me, but I don't know of a better way of saying it, despite my intention not to come across arrogant.

I find your response equivalent to a chess player overturning the chessboard midgame right after accepting that the King is mate.

I wanted you to move from effectively saying "we are not blameworthy for our actions since we are manipulated that way" to saying "there are somethings for which we are blameworthy by our own choices". You did make such a move, as is evident from some of your responses. There's no point in denying it and saying, "we're essentially left where we started."

The question of whether we have choice and whether we can be blameworthy is a separate issue from why God created us and why He created us with choice.

We know that John F Kennedy was assassinated but we don't really know why. Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean we're wrong to see that JFK was shot.

So, your rationale for overturning the chessboard is unreasonable.

Let me add a bit to this. I dont think you could ever dissociate humanity and our actions, from how our environment exists. I think that is a key statement in this discussion. And what exists, us and our environment and God, i dont think you could ever dissociate from eachother. So in order to accurately understand who is at fault for what, we have to know why our environment exists in the corrupt nature that it does, and why we exist in the corrupt nature that we do, and what Gods role is in all of this.

Even we did say that humanity were responsible for their actions, it still wouldnt mean God isnt responsible for us or the environment that manipulates us. Even if the environment exists without "morals", that doesnt automatically dissociate the environment from us, nor does it mean God is not responsible for its corruption. And with God, well i dont know what you believe about how God is related to the corrupt environment that exists or how God relates to us.

Overall, we have a bunch of unanswered questions about everything, and Im leaving options open.

We cant truly judge what we are or are not responsible for, if we dont know what God is or is not responsible for. I cant truly consider us blameworthy for anything If i dont even know what the source of the mess is. So, for the sake of moving forward in discussion I may have said ok. But We dont know where the flaws in our environment come from, and therefore we dont know who is or who is not responsible if anyone for those flaws in our environnment, or how that environment may relate to our own flaws. Another important question is, how we relate to the environment itself. You know how much of a naturalist I am, so when we talk about a corrupt environment potentially being created by God, we may as well be talking about humanity being created by God. I dont think the two questions of whether or not we are blameworthy, and whether or not God created meyhem are unrelated. Because our actions, our environment, and everything about us could ultimately be created by his hands in a specific way in which he wanted, with specific relations that he wanted.

So I will not rule out the potential responsibility of God just because it appears that we have choice in certain matters.

you said JFK was shot and we dont know why, but that doesnt mean we are wrong to see that he was shot. Yes that is correct, but that has nothing to do with who is to blame for JFK being shot.

We also witness a corrupt nature, and we dont know why. But that statement has nothing to do with who or what may be responsible for that corrupt nature, which may or may not relate to us and our actions.

I believe turning over the chessboard is perfectly reasonable at this point, not because the king is mate, but because neither of us knows the rules of the game. You cant play the game if you dont know the answers to questions of how to play the game.

Neither of us know why the environment is corrupt. That is something we agree on. Now, you believe that God exists. And I do not, not in the way you do. So each of us have our own different sets of questions that we could ask to figure out why the environment is corrupt.

Now, it appears that, because you dont know why the environment is corrupt, you also dont know how the environment came into existence ie by what parameters. What during creation made it the way it is now? I dont think you know. If you have ideas, feel free to state them. But because you dont appear to know, that means, options are open. Options like...God may have created existence in a way in which there would be corruption. If God did such a thing, as opposed to creating an existence without corruption, then it seems reasonable to me that God could be responsible for corruption and could be to blame for our own flawed way of life, especially if we have strong relations to our environment.

Sure, we can "make choices", but if decisions are limited to events that include violence and meyhem, or our decisions are heavily manipulated by something controlled by God (like our environment), or God does something that puts pressure on us and makes life hard due to corruption around us...then God could very well be playing a large role in why things around us are corrupt as well as corruption in ourselves.

But in the end, it appears that neither of us know. And even if we had ideas, at the end of the day it would still be subjection, atleast for me because I have no idea how we would even begin to confirm such subjection.

So, you are free to speak, and I will listen. If you think you have answers, state them. if you dont, then just say you dont. And if you think you have a firm basis for those answers, then state it.

At the end of the day, these are your beliefs Jebreil, not mine, so I could care very little if you demonstrate my statements to be wrong or not. So I can assure you, I am not trying to work against you, it just appears that neither of us have supplied anything that would bring any real clarity on the subject. And the most important question of what God is responsible for, cannot be answered if we dont know where things came from.

And please do, if you disagree, explain how we know what God is and is not responsible for even if we dont know why things exist the way they do. Because to me, thats like having a fresh cake in the oven and not knowing anything about who created it. How can we attribute praise, blame, responsibility or anything to anyone if we dont know who baked the cake nor how? Unless we assume things, and you know I dont like assuming things.

Maybe we baked the cake and are responsible for its existence, maybe God did, maybe nobody did and it just exists on its own without having been designed to exist in the way that it does.

I dont know. And it appears that nobody else does either.

Edited February 25, 2012 by iDevonian

[iDevonian]

If God is responsible for the cake, maybe its a master plan to manipulate us into eating it. Even with our "choice", God could still be responsible. Maybe not. I dont know. When questions are left unanswered, the options for solutions, pile up very quickly.

[ShiaBen]

part of our discussion included the question of how heaven exists. Whats the point of heaven if everyone in heaven lives as rich people with virgins? Wheres the mental stimulation in that? And yet, that is the superior existence.

I don't know what you're talking about "with virgins". There is nothing that states you will go to Heaven and receive "virgins". This is the most craziest thing I have ever heard.

But as for Heaven itself. Nobody knows what will go on in there. That's a secret in itself.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Your post hinges on this: Neither of us know why the environment is corrupt.

But I don't believe the environment is corrupt. So your point is irrelevant. I don't see a "corrupt" environment. I see a natural world unfolding naturally. There's nothing "corrupt" about it.

Imagine writing in a science paper: 'Life cannot occur in such-and-such temperatures, due to a "corrupt" environment.' I would like to know how scientists would analyse the use of the word "corrupt" in that sentence.

I do see that we have choices though. I see human beings becoming morally corrupt from their chosen lifestyles. Sometimes I see people acting selfishly, sometimes I see people acting against their better judgement, and sometimes I see people fearing to apologise despite knowing the've been wrong. So, sometimes I see people choose to act immorally, and this corrupts their character.

When questions are left unanswered, the options for solutions, pile up very quickly.

When people ask "what holds up the earth?" you get a pile of solutions indeed, ranging from elephants, turtles, more turtles and turtles all the way down.

explain how we know what God is and is not responsible for even if we dont know why things exist the way they do. Because to me, thats like having a fresh cake in the oven and not knowing anything about who created it. How can we attribute praise, blame, responsibility or anything to anyone if we dont know who baked the cake nor how?

I know what I am responsible for, and what I am to be blamed for or praised for. I also know a lot about other situations in which I could tag the blame on the human being and not the environment or anything else. Therefore, I don't need to blame God. When I make a mistake, I say sorry. I attribute the blame on myself. If I can do that, it means that I feel wholly responsible for my crime.

So, I don't know how God baked the cake, but I know that I put the raisins. I take responsibility for putting the raisins.

[iDevonian]

I don't know what you're talking about "with virgins". There is nothing that states you will go to Heaven and receive "virgins". This is the most craziest thing I have ever heard.

But as for Heaven itself. Nobody knows what will go on in there. That's a secret in itself.

haha, i have my dreams Ben, dont hate lol

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Your post hinges on this: Neither of us know why the environment is corrupt.

But I don't believe the environment is corrupt. So your point is irrelevant. I don't see a "corrupt" environment. I see a natural world unfolding naturally. There's nothing "corrupt" about it.

Alright, well if you are fine with children starving to death in Africa, i guess I am too. And yes i agree, i dont think the environment is good or evil, or corrupt or well designed. Its just nature, it is what it is. Though i take that a bit further and I apply it to humanity as well, which I imagine you would disagree with.

Imagine writing in a science paper: 'Life cannot occur in such-and-such temperatures, due to a "corrupt" environment.' I would like to know how scientists would analyse the use of the word "corrupt" in that sentence.

I do see that we have choices though. I see human beings becoming morally corrupt from their chosen lifestyles. Sometimes I see people acting selfishly, sometimes I see people acting against their better judgement, and sometimes I see people fearing to apologise despite knowing the've been wrong. So, sometimes I see people choose to act immorally, and this corrupts their character.

Or you write a science paper saying, X organisms developed based on how well they can destroy their competition. And you are correct, to a scientist, there is nothing corrupt about it, its just the way things are. We are beings who thrive based on the destruction of others. But there is nothing truly immoral about that, its just the way we exist. People makeing decisions do so under the nature of their existence. Which again we may disagree on. If someone chooses to do something, i dont think that decision is somehow detached from their natural existence.

When people ask "what holds up the earth?" you get a pile of solutions indeed, ranging from elephants, turtles, more turtles and turtles all the way down.

I know what I am responsible for, and what I am to be blamed for or praised for. I also know a lot about other situations in which I could tag the blame on the human being and not the environment or anything else. Therefore, I don't need to blame God. When I make a mistake, I say sorry. I attribute the blame on myself. If I can do that, it means that I feel wholly responsible for my crime.

So, I don't know how God baked the cake, but I know that I put the raisins. I take responsibility for putting the raisins.

haha, i like that, you put in the raisins. Well you wouldnt put in the raisins if you didnt have the cake and the raisins pre created for you, so again there is more to your decision than you alone.

Alright, i dont think we are going to go anywhere here. We can keep going back and forth if you would like. Ill hand it over to you now.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Alright, well if you are fine with children starving to death in Africa, i guess I am too.

I never said I'm fine with it. If I don't sympathise with them, speak for them, or do anything to help them, however, I am acting immorally. I am to be blamed.

I can be corrupt. It makes sense to say, "Jebreil is immoral. Shame on him. He should know better. How's his conscience?!" but it makes no sense to say, "Nature is immoral. Shame on it. It should know better. How's its conscience?!"

So, thus far, the blame is on me. I could act differently, but I don't want to waste time on irrelevant events happening in the world. It's none of my business. They're black anyway.

-------

But while it's clear I am immoral, one may ask: is God immoral too for creating such a world in which this happens?

This is a separate question to the first question in which we ask: is Jebreil at fault? One may argue that both God and Jebreil are together in the immorality, whereas a religious person would argue that Jebreil alone is responsible, since God created him as someone responsible for his actions.

But the argument which absolves Jebreil just because he is a creation of God is fallacious.

God, in His creativity, made him responsible for his actions.

I have mentioned myself too much. Next time I'll use 'James'.

[Lanatin]

haha. Ya all this is fine. I still want to know why God created such an environment then assuming he did. As opposed to one without conflict and faults and screwups and pain and suffering etc.

Having a struggle, making the right choice is what makes a human most valuable and worthy of reward. It is exactly from this free will we infer that life is a test (provided we accept the premise of the soul's existence). Cba saying much right now ._.

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

I never said I'm fine with it. If I don't sympathise with them, speak for them, or do anything to help them, however, I am acting immorally. I am to be blamed.

I can be corrupt. It makes sense to say, "Jebreil is immoral. Shame on him. He should know better. How's his conscience?!" but it makes no sense to say, "Nature is immoral. Shame on it. It should know better. How's its conscience?!"

So, thus far, the blame is on me. I could act differently, but I don't want to waste time on irrelevant events happening in the world. It's none of my business. They're black anyway.

-------

But while it's clear I am immoral, one may ask: is God immoral too for creating such a world in which this happens?

This is a separate question to the first question in which we ask: is Jebreil at fault? One may argue that both God and Jebreil are together in the immorality, whereas a religious person would argue that Jebreil alone is responsible, since God created him as someone responsible for his actions.

But the argument which absolves Jebreil just because he is a creation of God is fallacious.

God, in His creativity, made him responsible for his actions.

I have mentioned myself too much. Next time I'll use 'James'.

Well, maybe Jebreil doesnt go out and help all the poor children because he realizes its fruitless. Anyway...maybe God is indeed to blame for it. I dont think we can determine your...or James' responsibility without knowing Gods play in it all. You have said that God has created you responsible for your actions, and yet we dont know how or why God created everything the way he did. So Im not sure how you come to such a conclusion.

Having a struggle, making the right choice is what makes a human most valuable and worthy of reward. It is exactly from this free will we infer that life is a test (provided we accept the premise of the soul's existence). Cba saying much right now ._.

Yea, we are accepting many things aside from simply belief in a soul. Well, you and others are.

Edited February 26, 2012 by iDevonian

[Lanatin]

Yea, we are accepting many things aside from simply belief in a soul. Well, you and others are.

You're requesting the islamic perspective, im giving you it. Discussing the nature of consciousness and its immateriality, God's existence etc. has its seat reserved in the other topics in this subforum.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

You have said that God has created you responsible for your actions, and yet we dont know how or why God created everything the way he did. So Im not sure how you come to such a conclusion.

Oh, I can assure you. I've seen the error of my ways. I mean, it was a silly - even racist - thing for me to say, very immoral. My parents are really upset, after their efforts teaching me how wrong it is to be racist. And I apologise for it.

^ That's how I come to a conclusion that I am responsible for my actions - because that's how I act. Just as I am an organism that eats, drinks, thinks and sleeps, I am also an organism that takes responsibility for its own chosen actions and not actions for which it is manipulated. Thus, it blames itself when it acts against its better judgement, praises the sacrifice others make.

If you really think a human being cannot be blameworthy, then you don't what it means to be blameworthy. If a sane man murders his own child and then weeps in court in agony for his stupidity, then we say he is blaming himself. That is, he condemns his own action which he did freely. If he had been forced against his will to kill the child, he wouldn't be standing in the dock and his tears wouldn't be condemning his stupidity, but the tragedy of fate.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

You're requesting the islamic perspective, im giving you it. Discussing the nature of consciousness and its immateriality, God's existence etc. has its seat reserved in the other topics in this subforum.

I dont know If i ever did request it. But sure, and yes I agree, that is the Islamic perspective...or atleast thats one form of it.

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

Oh, I can assure you. I've seen the error of my ways. I mean, it was a silly - even racist - thing for me to say, very immoral. My parents are really upset, after their efforts teaching me how wrong it is to be racist. And I apologise for it.

^ That's how I come to a conclusion that I am responsible for my actions - because that's how I act. Just as I am an organism that eats, drinks, thinks and sleeps, I am also an organism that takes responsibility for its own chosen actions and not actions for which it is manipulated. Thus, it blames itself when it acts against its better judgement, praises the sacrifice others make.

If you really think a human being cannot be blameworthy, then you don't what it means to be blameworthy. If a sane man murders his own child and then weeps in court in agony for his stupidity, then we say he is blaming himself. That is, he condemns his own action which he did freely. If he had been forced against his will to kill the child, he wouldn't be standing in the dock and his tears wouldn't be condemning his stupidity, but the tragedy of fate.

Youre still ignoring the man behind it all, and youre assuming complete guilt in a world which you did not create, in an environment that you did not create, in an existence that you again...did not create.

You can accept all the blame you want, though that doesnt always mean you are 100% at fault. Anyone can believe they are at fault, or can accept blame for certain events. However, just because you believe it to be so, doesnt mean that it is. I accept blame for things that arent my fault all the time, we all do.

[Guest Jebreil]

I dont know If i ever did request it. But sure, and yes I agree, that is the Islamic perspective...or atleast thats one form of it.

Youre still ignoring the man behind it all, and youre assuming complete guilt in a world which you did not create, in an environment that you did not create, in an existence that you again...did not create.

You can accept all the blame you want, though that doesnt always mean you are 100% at fault. Anyone can believe they are at fault, or can accept blame for certain events. However, just because you believe it to be so, doesnt mean that it is. I accept blame for things that arent my fault all the time, we all do.

(bismillah)

To iDevonian

No, I remember the last time I got angry, and I know it was my fault. But I also remember another time when the situation led me to get angry, and so I was blaming myself less. 2 distinct cases. Conflating them is very crude.

There is no man behind it all. There is just me behind my actions. My will behind my choices. I don't see God behind any of my actions. It's just me.

But yes, God is the one who gave me the ability to choose as I wished rather than be forced against my will.

and youre assuming complete guilt in a world which you did not create, in an environment that you did not create, in an existence that you again...did not create.

Too dramatic and overblown. I'm assuming guilt only for my own mistakes as far as they were the outcome of my wish. Nothing more. Not the environment, nor the existence, nor the world.

[iDevonian]

Too dramatic and overblown. I'm assuming guilt only for my own mistakes as far as they were the outcome of my wish. Nothing more. Not the environment, nor the existence, nor the world.

ok, here is what im looking for.

Ok, so with this, it is possible that God is responsible for certain things that exist, which could potentially be bad depending on what they are.

Given that we dont know what God is responsible for, how can you know what you are whole-ly responsible for?

Edited February 26, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

I think youre assuming that the blame is yours. How can you know when you arent responsible for the creation of anything?

(bismillah)

Because I'm responsible for answering to you now, rather than going to sleep. I have a little fight inside me, and I am too hung up on this discussion to go to sleep. So I choose to ignore my earlier promise to myself to go to sleep before 2 a.m.

I could choose to go to sleep right after this, though. Then I'll respond tomorrow. Or I'll stay on for another few minutes. Let's see. You'll find out soon enough which option I've taken.

I do have some contribution to the way things are in the world, in a limited, localised sense.

Edited February 26, 2012 by Jebreil

[iDevonian]

(bismillah)

Because I'm responsible for answering to you now, rather than going to sleep. I have a little fight inside me, and I am too hung up on this discussion to go to sleep. So I choose to ignore my earlier promise to myself to go to sleep before 2 a.m.

I could choose to go to sleep right after this, though. Then I'll respond tomorrow. Or I'll stay on for another few minutes. Let's see. You'll find out soon enough which option I've taken.

So, yes, I do have some contribution to the way things are in the world, in a limited, localised sense.

keep an eye out for edits :P

How can you know that your decisions are things that you alone are souly responsible for though? I can choose to...like the example earlier. I can choose to put raisins on my cake, but I didnt make the cake nor the raisins. I didnt make my own brain which allows me to put the raisins in, i didnt create my environment nor my body which tells me raisins in cake would be good. So how can you say that you are souly responsible for putting raisins on the cake, when the settings are already pre designed for your to do so? Your "choices" are limitted to what is pre defined and supplied for you. You could say that you are responsible souly for your own specific action, however, that doesnt necisserily mean that you arent part of something more, working for something more, by the rules designed by something more, under the responsibility of something more etc.

You taking blame or responsibility for putting raisins on the cake (your own action), still doesnt make other possibilities of God or other things being responsible for you or everything else. You are acting in accordance to something that you have little to no choice in (nature). Those bigger umbrella responsibilities, could be those of a God. Assuming they exist, and Assuming God exists.

Therefore, its possible that God could be responsible for starving children in africa, and we could blame him for it. Regardless of what responsibilities that particular starving child, or you or james or anyone else...may have.

ok ill stop editting now.

Edited February 26, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

ok, here is what im looking for.

Ok, so with this, it is possible that God is responsible for certain things that exist, which could potentially be bad depending on what they are.

Given that we dont know what God is responsible for, how can you know what you are whole-ly responsible for?

(bismillah)

I'm only wholly responsible for the wrong bits I've brought about intentionally, for which I've had better judgement. My responsibility decreases in degree the more my judgement is impaired.

My judgement is impaired to various degrees by things as dramatic as insanity, autism, and phobia, or things like lack of proper knowledge or proper upbringing. Our responsibility decreases accordingly. We express this in our language and our treatment.

However, this leaves us with the huge number of cases for which we are wholly or greatly or mostly responsible for our actions, and we are blameworthy or praiseworthy to the same degree.

[iDevonian]

mmk well, check out the rest of my post. For what reason do you believe that God would not hold an umbrella type responsibility for everything you do?

How can you know that your decisions are things that you alone are souly responsible for though? I can choose to...like the example earlier. I can choose to put raisins on my cake, but I didnt make the cake nor the raisins. I didnt make my own brain which allows me to put the raisins in, i didnt create my environment nor my body which tells me raisins in cake would be good. So how can you say that you are souly responsible for putting raisins on the cake, when the settings are already pre designed for your to do so? Your "choices" are limitted to what is pre defined and supplied for you. You could say that you are responsible souly for your own specific action, however, that doesnt necisserily mean that you arent part of something more, working for something more, by the rules designed by something more, under the responsibility of something more etc.

You taking blame or responsibility for putting raisins on the cake (your own action), still doesnt make other possibilities of God or other things being responsible for you or everything else. You are acting in accordance to something that you have little to no choice in (nature). Those bigger umbrella responsibilities, could be those of a God. Assuming they exist, and Assuming God exists.

Therefore, its possible that God could be responsible for starving children in africa, and we could blame him for it. Regardless of what responsibilities that particular starving child, or you or james or anyone else...may have.

Or you could say that there is nothing morally wrong or corrupt about starving children in Africa. And that God isnt to blame for such a horrid thing. But rather this nature that has unknown origins is :P.

Edited February 26, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

Could you explain, with 2 fleshed-out examples if it's alright, what you mean by the umbrella-type responsibility? Thanks.

OK. I have decided to go to sleep now. I'm going to sleep because I want to, not in spite of wanting to.

[iDevonian]

Could you explain, with 2 fleshed-out examples if it's alright, what you mean by the umbrella-type responsibility? Thanks.

OK. I have decided to go to sleep now. I'm going to sleep because I want to, not in spite of wanting to.

I like the cake example. You didnt make the cake, you didnt make yourself, you didnt make the raisins, you didnt make anything. You didnt make your taste buds that like the taste of raisins, you didnt make a family that asked you to make the raisin cake. You just made the decision to put the raisins in the cake...thats it. So who is really responsible for putting raisins in the cake? You? Or whatever created everything? If raisins didnt exist, you wouldnt have put them into a cake. If the cake didnt exist, you wouldnt have put them in the cake. If your family didnt exist, u would have a family asking for raisin cake.

So why would you believe that you are souly responsible for putting raisins in the cake, when you are simply one part of an overall big picture that is existence (which you also didnt create).

And even if you could say, its my decision, I made it, therefore I am responsible. Well, your decision is still only possible due to the existence of something you didnt create. The decision you made abides by laws that you didnt create, and your options exist, not because you chose to have them exist, but because they have pre existed. Everything you do may be your choice, but you didnt chose the parameters that define how you make that choice. People choose to hunt for food, but they didnt choose to live a life in which they must choose to hunt for food. Just as you choose to put raisins in the cake, but you didnt choose an existence in which you would do so.

Id give another example, but i think this is clear enough. The food hunting and the raisin in cake examples.

Edited February 26, 2012 by iDevonian