Comments for Philosophy Courses

Comment on Philosophical Theology – More theories on Atonement. by Wisdumb

Wisdumb — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:46:07 +0000

Atoning too much is definitely better than not at all in my opinion.

As for the person who acknowledges their wrongdoing but doesn’t complete all of the atoning steps, I think it depends. It depends on the severity of the wrongdoing and the steps that are skipped. If someone murders an entire family, and they acknowledge the wrongdoing but stop there, I think they are going to Hell. If someone steals $20 and feels bad, and stops there, they might still be Heaven bound.

I’m thinking that if someone who does not deserve forgiveness (because they did not go through the proper atonement process) is still granted it by a super nice person, God might slam down the hammer and yell “OVERRULED” and send that ass straight down to Hell

There are also a bunch of problems with Hell just existing. So I sort of feel like those need to be addressed before this issue. Andy mentioned one of them in class. The idea is that Hell is a punishment of eternal damnation, but the crime was a finite number of sins. The punishment seems too harsh and unjust. But God is just , right? So why is God setting up this unjust system then?

Comment on Why Does Hell Exist? by Wayne Ceallaigh (Barone)

Wayne Ceallaigh (Barone) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:04:04 +0000

I feel that doing the right thing for the purpose of just doing it to help others is the best way to go about goodness. It is like the pursiut of happiness. If one were to put happiness on a pedestal, then that happiness would be harder to achieve, perhaps impossible, yet if one leads a good life, then happiness is a byproduct. The same can be said of goodness. If one leads a good life, and is aware of what is going on around them, and lends a helping hand where they can, then they will be doing good. Crusading for good is another matter, becuase then that good is being forced on someone, and like discomfort, pain, or even murder is wrong, forcing ‘good’ on someone is not good.

Comment on God and Knowledge and Souls by barr4267

barr4267 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:41:28 +0000

“maybe god is the human interpretation of the absence of knowledge”

This is a very good point. I can totally see where you’re coming from with this. It’s true that throughout history, there have been all sorts of Gods. In Egypt they were Gods who specified in one area like the sun god, kind of like in India Greece and Rome. In India there was the trinity of Shiva Vishnu and Brahma. Creator Destroyer and Preserver. While in Rome and Greece there were Gods like Venus/Aphrodite, Jupiter/Zeus and Neptune/Poseidon who specified in one area. There have always been “Gods” for things we can’t quite scientifically understand fully.

I believe that, as humans, we always try to find something/someone else to blame for our trials and tribulations, (Adam and Eve, Pandora, etc…) and someone to thank when things go our way.
“Ugh, God hates me so he’s giving me the hardest tests to wear me down and make me quit.”
“Thank God! I made it out of that accident alive.”
“With the help of Aphrodite, I met my soul mate.”
“Zeus is mad so he threw a lightning bolt at the Earth and that’s why my house burnt down.”
“Poseidon made it rain so all the crops will grow.”

Comment on God vs Religion by J0ckam0

J0ckam0 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:11:41 +0000

@Wayne Ceallaigh (Barone)- I remember one of my teachers in a high school comparative religion class saying that Christianity is moving in a more diverse direction, with nondenominational churches becoming more and more popular. (I don’t know exactly how much of this is really true though, he was a pretty poor teacher.) But this kind of relates to the whole disbanding of organized religion. I think it could be an area worth searching.

@stra7483- I think it’d be more like saying, “I love the Buffalo Bills and football, but I hate the NFL”. I think the labeling of things is really what he’s getting at here. The organization is what he has an issue with. That’s my interpretation at least.

Comment on God vs Religion by Wayne Ceallaigh (Barone)

Wayne Ceallaigh (Barone) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:56:01 +0000

This guy used an art form to express an argument in order to stress the point that Jesus did not want organized religion to move away from God. Yes, this video accepts the fact that a Christian is going to be looking at this rather than an agnostic or atheist is going to look to it for proof. I found the video compelling, however I did not really find many philisophical questions regarding exsitence of God within it. I did show it to a friend, and he said that the whole front of organized religion has been the very thing that has been keeping him away from a faith that he feels has called him many times, but the hypocrisy of the organizations forced him away. I think that is the only aim for the video, not to convert anyone. This comes down to a question: If we disbanded all organizations of religion based on the faith that Jesus did not want organized religion, would that act not count as an organized religious ordeal, and all people who adhered to it, would they not be a part of an organized religion again?

Comment on God vs Religion by stra7483

stra7483 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:50:27 +0000

I feel that the argument this guy is trying to make isn’t concise enough. He hits on a few ideas but he doesn’t get specific about it and in this situation he really needs to.

I’ve seen a lot of reactions to this video and they are almost all the same. Everyone gets so wrapped up in the video production and the (albeit) beautiful metaphors that they miss a lot of the points he is TRYING to make. They are feeling a rush of emotion but they are wrong in believing it’s the message; they are moved because of the production and how it resembles poetry. I have asked many people what he’s saying here and none of them can tell me, but they’re adamant in now believing that this guy is right and they need to follow his lead.

I love the poetry here but from a philosophical standpoint I can’t get by his argument to really break it down and get to what he’s actually saying. The only thing I can touch on other than what I have is that to me saying that you “Love Jesus/God but hate religion” is like saying “I love the Sabres but I absolutely hate hockey” which is absolutely absurd to me. I could be wrong, maybe my atheism is clouding my judgements.

Comment on God vs Religion by bjer2131

bjer2131 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:24:39 +0000

I agree with lanf on this one. To accept the argument the guy in the video is trying to make, you would already have had to accept the Christian belief in Jesus’ death as atonement for our sins as human beings.
This video also inspired me to look up the basic definition of religion, which is defined as: (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural, or (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
After looking at these definitions, I found some oppositions to the argument that religion is all bad. He says, “religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice.” To me, “they” represents the people that may use religion as self-justification, but that doesn’t mean religion itself is to blame. Having faith in a God of some sort does not give anyone the right to use that faith against others, but the faith itself should not be hated. As someone who is not very religious at all, I actually found this video really interesting. I know there are people out there who manipulate the words of religion as a cause for their sins, but in its most basic form, religion itself should not be blamed. People are not Gods for a reason. They are not perfect, but many people want to have a relationship with God, and what better way to do that than through religion? I’d also like to bring up this question: what came first, God or religion?

Comment on Why Does Hell Exist? by Wisdumb

Wisdumb — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:55:19 +0000

I’m with you stra7483. Seems like God would look down at those who do good because of selfish reasons.

I also can’t understand what Heaven would be like. Is it even us who go to Heaven? Do i just stop getting angry once I’m in Heaven? If I have to be changed in any way to be more fit for Heaven then its not really me up their any way.

Even if only the good people go to Heaven, seems like there would still be a ton of problems, disagreements, even violence. The only way I can see Heaven being free of those things is if God transforms everyone once they arrive, but that seems like a big problem. Especially if we don’t get a choice

Comment on Blog 1 by bjer2131

bjer2131 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:41:36 +0000

To answer kess’s question, I do not think it’s crucial for a OOO-being to exist. Not only does it present us with the problem of evil, among other things, but a OOO-being is incomparable to humans, making it much more difficult to relate to. Also, after talking in class about a God that created humans knowing full-well that they could make bad decisions (sending them to Hell) or good decisions (sending them to Heaven), it seems impossible for that same God to be omnipotent. This would bring the argument of whether we as humans have free will or not, and if a OOO-being existed, free will would be impossible, and Heaven and Hell would seemingly be negated from the equation.
Honestly, this whole concept boggles my mind. But I think Stump makes a very strong argument, not only for the problems associated with atonement, but in her description of God as determining AND determined. This not only allows us to believe that the human sense of freedom is true, but it emphasizes a sort of relationship with God, where there is give and take. I would have to say that this makes the most sense to me in the end, because that seems to be what most religious people are looking for: a relationship with God, and a feeling of acceptance by Him. Based on this idea, if a person does something wrong, God cannot be blamed for that person’s act of free will. However, the path that person takes in order to redeem him/herself could potentially be in response to God’s will. And if this were the case, God would have to be slightly flawed, because at times he is determined, while at other times he is determining.

Comment on Omniscience versus Omnibenevolence by flan2784

flan2784 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:02:12 +0000

As I said above, “To which my answer is that World War II had so very many consequences other than just Israel that it would be impossible to number them all.” So yes, I too can imagine plenty of ways for a Jewish homeland to be created without WWII, but my point is that when one considers ALL consequences of WWII (not just at a national level, but also at the individual level) we as hmans cannot possibly know how things might have changed if this war had not occured. Maybe someone killed in the fighting would have grown up to be an even worse dictator than Hitler for example. My point is that becasue we don’t actually know how things would be different, we by extension can never know if what happened was indeed a “bad” event. If you want to prove God’s OOO status, then bad events aren’t a point against him, rather we have to trust that for reasons we aren’t aware of the thing that happened truly is the best possible option.

Another way of explaining it: I had a snowboarding accident in highschool that absolutely destroyed my knee. I had to have multiple surgeries and do physical therapy for two full years, I missed out on two and a half seasons of varsity soccer, and I was incredibly upset. But if that hadn’t happened to me, instead of studying Theatre at Fredonia and loving my life I would be in upstate NY, playing soccer and getting an undergrad in English Education, and I would ultimately graduate and spend the rest of my life being just a littel bit miserable without really understanding why. It is easy for me to look at my own past and evaluate how good or bad events have ultimately pushed me onto the path I walk today, but you cannot do this on a global level. There are far too many unknown factors.

Hopefully one of those was a more coherent explaination; I’m not always able to translate my thoughts well.

Comment on God can lift the Stone by flan2784

flan2784 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:38:35 +0000

“Yes, he hasn’t completed said task yet, but he hasn’t failed either. ” -Schroedinger’s Cat

“If God was actually going to create the heaviest possible stone, he’d have to do it in time and space, correct? If we’ve in this infinite loop than his heaviest stone is going to take up all of the observable Universe potentially destroying mankind, alienkind, whatever-else-is-out-there-kind, everything, until he reached the edges of the universe”

This is an interesting idea! I don’t think he has to create the heaviest possible stone to fufill the parameters of the puzzle however, merely one that he himself cannot lift. So he could either keep making the stone denser to make it heavier (without increasing it’s size), or he could make himself weaker in order to be unable to lift it.

I agree with what was said about faith in religion but I don’t think this puzzle is about God having to “prove” his OOO status to us, rather it is a logic puzzle that’s fun to think about; a hypothetical musing rather than a demand that God prove he is all powerful by performing two actions that seem mutually exclusive to us.

As far as the square circle goes, I’m of the mind that it is not a nonsensical statement when you consider two things:
1) Just becasue I personally cannot picture a figure that is simultaneously a circle and a square does not mean that such a figure is impossible (I really can’t accurately picture infinity either. I can imagine a constantly expanding univers but to picture a universe that right now at this moment is infinite is beyond me. Becasue I only have experience with finite objects. How can I picture something I don’t know? Similarly, how can I picture such an improbable shape?)
2) Our notions of what makes a “circle” and a “square” are based on human knowledge and human observation, and very often we humans get things wrong.

I absolutely agree with the point that’s been made about God’s relationship to space and time; he surely doesn’t have to work within the constraints of either, which just makes either puzzle that much more probable.

Comment on God can lift the Stone by camp3513

camp3513 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:01:34 +0000

There is also another solution to this paradox that has not been addressed.

As previously stated, according to the traditional view, an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being would be able to do anything, such as lift any stone. But if he could create anything, then he could create a stone so heavy that he himself couldn’t lift it. Many see this as a problem, but I do not.

C.S. Lewis brought up this thought. The statement “a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it” is nonsensical; it holds as much sense as the existence of a “square circle.” If we were to change the argument to “Could got create a square circle?” we would surely say no. There is no logical way in any possible world to create a single object that simultaneously exemplifies the characteristics of a square and a circle.

Also, as a side note, I am a little puzzled with the second claim proposed in the comment above. Does God necessarily need to work in time and space? God could exist outside of time and space or exist in another possible world. I don’t see any problem with having this thought, but I don’t see any proof for God needing to be in time and space.

Comment on God vs Religion by lanf4604

lanf4604 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:47:16 +0000

I think the problem with this video is that it is speaking to those who already accept Christianity. This video talks about how legalism or religion (the over emphasis of discipline and conduct) is not the way in which God intended those who have a relationship with Him to follow. I think that in order to accept this video as a worthy source of information, we would have to already believe in God an the attonement. It is more of a “how to be a good Christian” video than an agrument for the existence of God.

Comment on God can lift the Stone by lanf4604

lanf4604 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:30:29 +0000

The idea of an infinite loophole is quite baffling. I am tempted to say that if there exists a God omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, He would not want partake in a task of such un-bounding nature. My question is: is it necessary for an all-powerful being to prove that it is all powerful to someone or something that is not nor will it ever be? As stra7483 mentioned earlier, for humans to witness an event, such as lifting the heaviest stone, the OOO God being would have to defy the laws of physics as we understand them, but maybe not as He understands them. What would be the point of exerting all that effort for a group of people that might not have the capacity to understand it? To prove to mankind that He is indeed omnipotent? If the definition of Omni benevolence is someone or something that is all-good, why would something all-good want to try to prove that He is all-powerful. Something about the event of proving an OOO nature seems contradictory. A wise man is often humble for a proud man is often just a man unaware of his faults. Socrates himself was considered a wise man because he appeared to know a lot more than the rest of his contemporaries; however, he understood that he knew a lot less than he did know. Granted Socrates was not an OOO being, still he was closer to being all knowing than most.
What confuses me about arguing the nature of an OOO being is the fact that we ourselves are neither omniscient, omnipotent, not omnibenevolent. Taking that into consideration, who are we to judge whether or not a being possesses all of those qualities? In my mind that seems like the average Joe going up to the long gone Einstein and saying that his theory of relativity can’t be true because it doesn’t make sense. The average Joe cannot understand a theory so complex because he is unversed in the terminology of the theory and the principles that make it function. Granted even this example is flawed because the definition of a theory is so muddy, I believe it holds some merit because it is still demonstrating an idea that is more concrete. To me it seems as though the truth, which is what we are all ultimately searching for is something that we, as human with limitations will not be able to find. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the entire point of any religion, not just Christianity is faith. The event of believing in something is holding something to have the potential of being true even when there is reason to doubt it. I think a greater question is to what extent does and OOO being need to prove its OOO powers in order for one to believe.

Comment on Choosing not to believe by Hakuna Matata

Hakuna Matata — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:12:30 +0000

I like what you’re saying Milt. It’s true that many people feel as if they need to either believe in a god or not believe in a god. But, what’s wrong with saying “I don’t know if there is a god”?

Zuch I like that you brought up that churches like to put their religion up on a pedestal. I hate that people believe that their religion is better than any other religion. We have no way of proving whether there is a higher power or not, so how can we say that a particular religion is right or wrong?