Sociopath Community

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

God isn't 100% beyond understanding though, otherwise we would not even know the thing exists. 

God does not need to respect the law of excluded middle, which you presuppose here.

Wouldn't something completely beyond our understanding be effectively invisible to us? 

BT's also read the bible and some supplementary side materials, so it's a wasted point to make that otherwise supports the path of defeatist ignorance. 

Sure. However, you agree with the statement. You think it is a valid point, even if it is trivially true to you.

Not really, I think there is an underlying point even behind doing seemingly pointless things. 

The point isn't to find answers, it's to seek them. 

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

God isn't 100% beyond understanding though, otherwise we would not even know the thing exists. 

God does not need to respect the law of excluded middle, which you presuppose here.

Wouldn't something completely beyond our understanding be effectively invisible to us? 

I don't know, how do you begin to understand something that is beyond your understanding? At any rate, my point was about the law of excluded middle.

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

God isn't 100% beyond understanding though, otherwise we would not even know the thing exists. 

God does not need to respect the law of excluded middle, which you presuppose here.

Wouldn't something completely beyond our understanding be effectively invisible to us? 

I don't know, how did you begin to understand something that is beyond your understanding?

You wouldn't even have a foundation to question it's existence in the first place, there wouldn't even be a proper nomenclature for it. 

At any rate, my point was about the law of excluded middle.

I am not too familiar with it and am stuck with laymanning it on it's wiki article. If the concept could be dumbed down for me to account for my inexperience it'll become easier for me to answer in a way that's more suitable. 

From a cursory glance anyway it appears to be about the presumption of a binary, an "it is or it isn't" situation otherwise ignoring a potential for other reasoning. If it is that, then our means of posing that God or a deity exists would mean it is still not beyond human understanding when compared to something yet named by mankind entirely. 

If something ended up serving a similar purpose to God or a deity, yet had nothing to do with what we've supposed, then that'd play into being beyond human understanding with the idea of God more like a placeholder for whatever's really going on, but if it turns out to be God as S/He has been theorized in any number of Holy texts then this deity must not be fully beyond human understanding, even if those things in order to be understood had to be granted by the deity in question itself. 

Turncoat said: 

You wouldn't even have a foundation to question it's existence in the first place, there wouldn't even be a proper nomenclature for it.

How did you infer those things about something you are even in principle incapable of understanding or comprehending? You presuppose that you have some understanding of the incomprehensible. How do you justify that understanding?

At any rate, my point was about the law of excluded middle.

I am not too familiar with it and am stuck with laymanning it on it's wiki article. If the concept could be dumbed down for me to account for my inexperience it'll become easier for me to answer in a way that's more suitable. 

From a cursory glance anyway it appears to be about the presumption of a binary, an "it is or it isn't" situation otherwise ignoring a potential for other reasoning. If it is that, then our means of posing that God or a deity exists would mean it is not beyond human understanding when compared to something yet named by mankind entirely. 

If something ended up serving a similar purpose to God or a deity, yet had nothing to do with what we've supposed, then that'd play into being beyond human understanding with the idea of God more like a placeholder for whatever's really going on, but if it turns out to be God as S/He has been theorized in any number of Holy texts then this deity must not be fully beyond human understanding, even if those things in order to be understood had to be granted by the deity in question itself.

It boils down to: God does not need to respect logic. The law of excluded middle is at the foundation of logic and it's presupposed in all of these discussions. Presupposing logic to understand something that does not need to respect logic gets things wrong from the outset, is my point.

AppleGenius said: 

God is beyond your and my understanding, which sort of defeats the purpose of all these philosophical ramblings. God has a plan for all of us, and there's no reason he has to care even about the law of excluded middle.

I actually agree with God being epistemologically beyond our full understanding. Discussion and description of God is fraught with anthropomorphizing, encapsulated as we are in our own perceptual and cognitive finiteness, framed within the confines of the limits of life experience (including our biology, physics, etc.). But there must be windows. What windows are there?  Is it worth exploring?

We could discuss how integral logic is to God and reality in general, but as far as the discussion at hand, it's important more for proper framing and discussion at all.  However, as far as excluded middle goes: God may be omnipotent, but that doesn't mean "doing the undoable".  God might be able to dwell in the midst of or draw from the source beyond 2VL, but that's where the rubber seems to hit the road for everything else.

However, out of curiosity, is this your actual opinion, or are you mostly borrowing arguments from someone else? Or both?

Probably both.  I didn't really go on with sources or anything, so I guess that leads more to your second consideration below...

I have a feeling that most people here wouldn't agree with your characterisation of "the plan" or God's personality, which makes it difficult to start formulating an answer to any of the questions. That is, supposing that you wanted answers to those questions and didn't just want to post something poetic. In my humble opinion, your presuppositions appear heavily opinionated.

They seem opinionated, probably a lot due to my lack of sources or references.  So, I'll go with "poetic" and try to cover up "lazy". :)

However, I welcome your input and any points of discussion you want to bring up.  It's just been on my mind a lot.

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

This is probably going to turn into a mess of a thread...or not. Is it predetermined to be so? Is it that the future is written out, encoded into reality, and we have but yet to live it, experience it? Or is it that there is a tapestry of intents, interwoven with threads of determinism and indeterminacy? 

I suspect the majority don't think about these kinds of things over how it depresses them. People don't tend to enjoy Existentialism over how it challenges them, they'd rather think something is handling it all for them as long as they follow a simple set of guidelines. 

Probably.  Although, one wonders the rate or extent the average does contemplate these things during a lifetime.  How important is it to most people, and how come it isn't more (or maybe, in some cases, less)?

To what extent is God culpable, supposing he exists?

Entirely. 

Though it teeters on the rim of the actual topic of free will vs determinism, one might consider that existence at all is enough culpability to implicate God.  After all, even if we are "free to choose" and live autonomously, God is everything (or, if you don't want to accept that monism, he made everything).  He literally "stacked the deck" -- and not only that, he made the cards AND the very rules by which they are played.  This brings other questions, though, not quite in line with this specific topic, I think.

Free will is our ignorance of events, similar to how animals don't get everything we're doing. We're basically being told by the one who can see and know everything that our ignorance is some sort of an advantage, sort of like how we sometimes might envy an animal over how their constraints can be considered a freedom in their own right. 

Given one's belief in determinism (though, it should be noted, not necessarily fatalism), this seems like the only option.  There is compatibilism, as well, though I think you're more or less describing (in essence) the "reality television" sort of scenario.  A very scriptural -- I mean, scripted -- existence.  Ignorance is part of the act, but it's very method acting.

Or maybe to such a creature Life is but a Dream? Or perhaps he is enjoying people's lives vicariously like how we play God with videogames and streaming? 

It's probably unnecessary to point out how such things as love, honor, or worship would be in a system of predestination. Hollow and pointless. Would God really find pleasure in this?

Why do we find pleasure in it?

I keep seeing how God sees us like how we see animals, and if we are through some faiths considered to have been made in His image that further supports the idea. Our relationship with animals is very complicated, ranging from love to hate to slaughtering for food without malice at all, so why not the same for God? 

Ignorance is cute, the drama it creates is engaging, and perhaps the only way God can enjoy surprise is through this relationship.  Human beings also enjoy inanimate objects and have a real tendency to anthropomorphize things.  If God's efforts are to have beings with which to relate to, I'm pretty sure he's got to know that enterprise is doomed to failure on principle.  Why not be happy with that Trinity he's got going on?  You're suggesting mortal pets?

As you say, it's likely more complicated than that.  For, if everything is just God's dream, it only gives more credence to Will over programming.  An ongoing, kinetic involvement.  A Plan that can change.  Which brings us to question just how "changeless" is God?

Even the enjoyment one might have in creating something programmed and mechanistic is whether or not it works properly.  And that enjoyment only comes with the uncertainty.  God, by nature unable to be ignorant (if predetermination is true), wouldn't likely be able to have that kind of enjoyment in the same way.

If we go with the Christian model, "The Now" is all of time for Him, seeing Everything and Everywhere All at Once. To God the passage of time would be but an instant, while we live it out very, very slowly.

 It's probably not going to go far when it comes to matters of "it's point of view", since when it comes to ours, determinism and iterative, atemporal generation will pretty much look the same.  It is also difficult to discuss how to view actual vs potential.  Is potential "real"?  Is the future "real"?  When is "now", considering all facets such as relativity (even the time delay of light reaching our eyes, the speed of sound, the time it takes for our brains to neurochemically process and do anything, etc.)?  All these frames of reference, but what keeps any of it coherent?  Our brain?  Is it anthropomorphizing to consider an organizing influence in the universe, even to a basic thing like gravity?

AppleGenius said: 

It boils down to: God does not need to respect logic. The law of excluded middle is at the foundation of logic and it's presupposed in all of these discussions. Presupposing logic to understand something that does not need to respect logic gets things wrong from the outset, is my point.

Ah, but where it matters to us, it does.  This doesn't have to be a full understanding.  But for matters of comprehension at all, 2VL is our only in-road, right?  Of course, we can only know what we can know.

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

You wouldn't even have a foundation to question it's existence in the first place, there wouldn't even be a proper nomenclature for it.

How did you infer those things about something you are even in principle incapable of understanding or comprehending? You presuppose that you have some understanding of the incomprehensible. How do you justify that understanding?

We are talking about it, therefor some level of ability to recognize it is there, which is itself an understanding. 

The only other explanation would be the deities being a placeholder for something else, meaning your idea to "go read The Bible" wouldn't help someone any further than them choosing not to. 

At any rate, my point was about the law of excluded middle.

I am not too familiar with it and am stuck with laymanning it on it's wiki article. If the concept could be dumbed down for me to account for my inexperience it'll become easier for me to answer in a way that's more suitable. 

From a cursory glance anyway it appears to be about the presumption of a binary, an "it is or it isn't" situation otherwise ignoring a potential for other reasoning. If it is that, then our means of posing that God or a deity exists would mean it is not beyond human understanding when compared to something yet named by mankind entirely. 

If something ended up serving a similar purpose to God or a deity, yet had nothing to do with what we've supposed, then that'd play into being beyond human understanding with the idea of God more like a placeholder for whatever's really going on, but if it turns out to be God as S/He has been theorized in any number of Holy texts then this deity must not be fully beyond human understanding, even if those things in order to be understood had to be granted by the deity in question itself.

It boils down to: God does not need to respect logic.

We don't know that, there may be a logic to God that is not Human logic, but otherwise akin to human logic if we go with any of the accounts where we were made to be like lesser versions of the god(s) in question. 

The law of excluded middle is at the foundation of logic and it's presupposed in all of these discussions. Presupposing logic to understand something that does not need to respect logic gets things wrong from the outset, is my point.

If the texts of at least one of the many religions are to be taken as an account of the situation (rather than anything else), deities do seem to have restrictions and laws that, at the very least, they hold themselves to to such a point as to show a sense of consistency. Much like how humans have the free choice to do things unlike themselves, how often will you find them doing that versus falling into their own pathological consistency? 

This may be a case where having the ability to do anything may not mean that the one in question will do it. 

Buttered Toast said: 

Ah, but where it matters to us, it does.

I disagree.

But for matters of comprehension at all, 2VL is our only in-road, right?

Why would it be?

Turncoat said: 

We are talking about it, therefor some level of ability to recognize it is there, which is itself an understanding. 

I would dispute that.

The only other explanation would be the deities being a placeholder for something else, meaning your idea to "go read The Bible" wouldn't help someone any further than them choosing not to. 

How did you infer that without the law of excluded middle?

We don't know that, there may be a logic to God that is not Human logic, but otherwise akin to human logic if we go with any of the accounts where we were made to be like lesser versions of the god(s) in question.

You're still trying to understand the incomprehensible.

If the texts of at least one of the many religions are to be taken as an account of the situation (rather than anything else), deities do seem to have restrictions and laws that, at the very least, they hold themselves to to such a point as to show a sense of consistency. Much like how humans have the free choice to do things unlike themselves, how often will you find them doing that versus falling into their own pathological consistency? 

This may be a case where having the ability to do anything may not mean that the one in question will do it.

How did you infer that from the text? Again, you or I don't understand God. You're still trying to understand something that is beyond our understanding.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

This is probably going to turn into a mess of a thread...or not. Is it predetermined to be so? Is it that the future is written out, encoded into reality, and we have but yet to live it, experience it? Or is it that there is a tapestry of intents, interwoven with threads of determinism and indeterminacy? 

I suspect the majority don't think about these kinds of things over how it depresses them. People don't tend to enjoy Existentialism over how it challenges them, they'd rather think something is handling it all for them as long as they follow a simple set of guidelines. 

Probably.  Although, one wonders the rate or extent the average does contemplate these things during a lifetime.  How important is it to most people, and how come it isn't more (or maybe, in some cases, less)?

They have to be challenged to do it, as can be seen by how it's more typical for people to question things or even change life paths from something like the death of a family member pushing the point. 

If they are not given a reason to question it then whatever they're doing must be working, so then why would they? 

This is why when I was growing up that I found myself gravitating towards disordered people; Unless they are not lucid, they have been given reason to question reality sooner than their peers from having been given a deck stacked against them. 

To what extent is God culpable, supposing he exists?

Entirely. 

Though it teeters on the rim of the actual topic of free will vs determinism, one might consider that existence at all is enough culpability to implicate God. 

It is, for all the good and ill He is responsible for it the same way that a supervisor is responsible for their subordinates' output. To top it off, He has the power to change it and then chooses not to, not as a law, but as a preference. 

He is also not subject to human error, in fact He goes further to say it's all intentional. How are otherwise good people, who do not fit His guidelines, supposed to accept that? He does not demand that one be good, he demands that one follow His laws, which to me demonstrates a tyrannical ruler. 

To be honest, I think God didn't want people to have the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the fruit over how it would risk painting God in a bad light. Such knowledge would serve to have God feel judged, something we're explicitly told He does not like. Without such knowledge we'd only see it like a power heirarchy. 

Free will is our ignorance of events, similar to how animals don't get everything we're doing. We're basically being told by the one who can see and know everything that our ignorance is some sort of an advantage, sort of like how we sometimes might envy an animal over how their constraints can be considered a freedom in their own right. 

Given one's belief in determinism (though, it should be noted, not necessarily fatalism), this seems like the only option.  There is compatibilism, as well, though I think you're more or less describing (in essence) the "reality television" sort of scenario.  A very scriptural -- I mean, scripted -- existence.  Ignorance is part of the act, but it's very method acting.

I see it sort of like how some blue pill types could end up envying the life Truman from The Truman Show led up to the point of his ignorance being destroyed. 

Truman's life after having lived in such a world is going to be horrible, I would not be surprised if he went into shock and wished he could go back. 

It's probably unnecessary to point out how such things as love, honor, or worship would be in a system of predestination. Hollow and pointless. Would God really find pleasure in this?

Why do we find pleasure in it?

I keep seeing how God sees us like how we see animals, and if we are through some faiths considered to have been made in His image that further supports the idea. Our relationship with animals is very complicated, ranging from love to hate to slaughtering for food without malice at all, so why not the same for God? 

Ignorance is cute, the drama it creates is engaging, and perhaps the only way God can enjoy surprise is through this relationship. 

We can witness the lives of others and live vicariously without having to reflect the ignorance of who we're viewing. 

It's called Suspension of Disbelief, and it's something people do often when watching scripted plots. God would likely be seeing life in a similar light. 

Even the enjoyment one might have in creating something programmed and mechanistic is whether or not it works properly. 

Not true, it's about the output's existence as a demonstration of one's efforts. Even an error is affirmation of our work, and some bugs are later treated more like features. 

As algorythms advance it's leaving human hands more and more. 

And that enjoyment only comes with the uncertainty.  God, by nature unable to be ignorant (if predetermination is true), wouldn't likely be able to have that kind of enjoyment in the same way.

It could be more like God is unable to be ignorant of matters as small as ours, much like how we can categorize the animal kingdom and study them as species for consistency patterns. 

There is nothing to say that God understands God, and our questioning God may be yet one more thing that's made in His image. 

If we go with the Christian model, "The Now" is all of time for Him, seeing Everything and Everywhere All at Once. To God the passage of time would be but an instant, while we live it out very, very slowly.

 It's probably not going to go far when it comes to matters of "it's point of view", since when it comes to ours, determinism and iterative, atemporal generation will pretty much look the same.  It is also difficult to discuss how to view actual vs potential.  Is potential "real"?  Is the future "real"? 

It's real to us anyway. 

When is "now", considering all facets such as relativity (even the time delay of light reaching our eyes, the speed of sound, the time it takes for our brains to neurochemically process and do anything, etc.)?

It's riiiiight... now.