Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by FMF
OK, so I answered your question. What about the question you didn't answer because you asked me one instead? Here it is:

What about you? What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

Maybe if you read my post history you will find my answer to your question. 😀

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Maybe if you read my post history you will find my answer to your question. 😀

You've posted about your religious views on a comparison of what you think constitutes divine justice for a pedophile, Adolf Eichmann, a Muslim, and an atheist? I don't think you have.

Originally posted by FMF
OK, so I answered your question. What about the question you didn't answer because you asked me one instead? Here it is:

What about you? What "justice" do you think is "real" for each of the following: [1] the pedophile, [2] Adolf Eichmann, [3] my Muslim neighbour, and [4] the atheist.

I do not believe FetchMyJunk is here to engage in an exchange of views, FMF. He is evidently only interested in scoring debating points.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I do not believe FetchMyJunk is here to engage in an exchange of views, FMF. He is evidently only interested in scoring debating points.

I rather think he's like a tailender batting with a recognised batsman in a last wicket stand and he's making no attempt to score any runs. 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] If I understand your argument, it basically goes like this:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

Is that a fair restatement?

That's a fair representation of what I have said. And prem ...[text shortened]... ely consistent may not represent truth, just because it is strongly consistent reasoning.

Premise (1) I might think about phrasing differently. I don't know how at the moment. But I think you have been pretty fair.

Okay, please let me know when you have decided how to reformulate Premise (1), since I think it is, as it stands, the crux of the argument.

Regarding the rest of this post, a lot of what you are talking about reports your belief that perfect justice manifests in God. This belief of yours is based on your study and interpretation of divine scriptures, your life experiences, putatively revelatory experiences, etc, etc. That's fine, but, at best, this all only goes to supporting Premise (2). What I would like to see is support for Premise (1), or else your reformulation of it.

Maybe it is. But a logical fallacy is just a weak formal argument. The logical argument may be weak but the truth it represents still be valid.

Yes, the problem with instances of logical fallacies is not that they are necessarily invalid. Some are, but others aren't. In fact, some might be even be perfectly sound. But, even so, the problem with fallacies is that they do not function as a good argument should. A good argument does not just report a true conclusion but gives you good reasons to accept it because the premises are plausible and they also relate in the right way to that conclusion. Fallacies fail to do this, for various reasons. So, if we consider the specific fallacy I was talking about, I'm afraid your arguments sort of resemble this type of fallacy:

(i) If there is no God, then there is no perfect justice (some rapists and murderers will get away scot-free, etc, etc).
(ii) "No perfect justice?!?" That would really suck!
(iii) Therefore, there is a God.

The premises may be true, and even the conclusion may well be true. But of course the argument does not give one any good reason to accept the conclusion. In this case, the argument is clearly invalid.

At any rate, I'm not claiming that this is your argument. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that this is not an accurate reflection of your argument. But some of your reasoning shows hints of this sort of fallacy, which is not favorable. Regardless, I prefer to stick to the previous argument redescription I offered, which you said is fair but maybe needs some reformulation in Premise (1).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I remember looks like I did not stay engaged sorry. I think we were moving cross country.

No worries, KJ!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume we have been here along time which seems to be the great defender of so
many human assumptions about everything. As I pointed out if it were common what is it
about us you find common when we are scattered around the planet in so many different
types of terrain? If it were just through accumulation and dissemination wouldn't that mean
we woul ...[text shortened]... as
and was not important.

I'll give evolution of morality a read if you read Willard's book.

Hey KJ, I have obtained a copy of The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God by Willard. It's about 400 pages or so, it appears. So, instead of getting bogged down, perhaps you could cite a few particularly significant chapters I could focus on first. I could do the same for the Joyce book....

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hey KJ, I have obtained a copy of The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God by Willard. It's about 400 pages or so, it appears. So, instead of getting bogged down, perhaps you could cite a few particularly significant chapters I could focus on first. I could do the same for the Joyce book....

I have it, I believe my son just read it so I'll have to find it. I have not read it in years more
than likely since we last talked about it. My pastor introduced me to him once at a
conference he was a nice guy. I'll grab the book and look it over, the first chapter I recall
held my interest. As quick as I find it I'll let you know about others.

When I say have it I'm referring to DW book, I'll look for Joyce's.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] If I understand your argument, it basically goes like this:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

Is that a fair restatement?

That's a fair representation of what I have said. And prem ...[text shortened]... ely consistent may not represent truth, just because it is strongly consistent reasoning.

If I understand your argument, it basically goes like this:

(1) If justice is only imperfectly realized, then it doesn't exist in the first place.
(2) Only God can perfectly realize justice.
(3) Hence, God is necessary for the existence of justice.

Regarding (1), consider a geometrical figure like a circle. That no perfect circle is realized in nature does not seem to negate the concept of a circle. That there's an abstract unreachable standard doesn't cause us to claim that geometry is flawed in some way - so why do you apply this to morality?

With (2) one could construct a cosmology like the Buddhist one, with justice realized over reincarnations as some sort of natural force - but no actual god, at least in the sense of a personal God which a Christian would recognize. This would seem to allow for justice being perfectly realized over lifetimes without a God. To make my point the cosmology doesn't have to be true, it just weakens the claim that God is logically necessary for justice to be perfectly realized. We can imagine other mechanisms. So as a sort of ersatz ontological argument there's too many problems.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course someone is entitled to their opinion about justice and injustice. But crimes are defined by society as a whole or by those in power; what constitutes justice is defined in the same way too.

So can some societies view about what constitutes 'Justice' be wrong?

Originally posted by LemonJello

Okay, please let me know when you have decided how to reformulate Premise (1), since I think it is, as it stands, the crux of the argument.

In the meantime should I take it that you do believe that injustice exists if there is no ultimate justice.

I am going to assume that you can measure "crooked" against something "less crooked". But at the same time you have no ideal of absolute "straightness".

Relatively so, then, there can be lesser levels of injustice. That is all ?
Am I getting your thought right ? There does not have to be any perfectly "straight" line against which "crooked" can be detected ?

Regarding the rest of this post, a lot of what you are talking about reports your belief that perfect justice manifests in God.

That's probably true. Keeping things in isolated neat categories might be nice for academic clarity. But I can hardly avoid including life experience. At least I realize this. I think it should be the case with ALL of us, even if we do not admit it.

We come with presuppositions and already established worldviews to the issue based on our life experience. Do you purport to have nothing but the rules of logical argumentation to be your only influence ?

This belief of yours is based on your study and interpretation of divine scriptures, your life experiences, putatively revelatory experiences, etc, etc.

And you claim that nothing else of your study, experience and interpretation of writings of some sort, etc. etc. are coloring your viewpoint ?

I think we could both be honest in admitting that we have a kind of accumulative case built up based on many factors in our life experience.

Think of every single action you perform. Three things are involved.
1.) You think on it. (Mind)
2.) You decide whether you like something of do not like something. (Emotion)
3.) You make a choice to react one way or another. (Will)

The Mind, the Emotion, and the Will are invovled.
It is not JUST the Mind that is involved.

In every aspect of your human life, not only the intellect is involved. You ALSO are informed by Emotion - "Do I like or hate this matter?"

And the Will is involved - "I CHOOSE this action or that action, accordingly."

In both our cases with this matter of God's existence, we are not just a big intellectual Cerebrum on top of a set of shoulders. We both are consulting what we love or hate and what we choose or reject to choose.

That's fine, but, at best, this all only goes to supporting Premise (2). What I would like to see is support for Premise (1), or else your reformulation of it.

Actually I was pleased that you thought Premise (2) might be true. But if you're an Atheist, Premise (2) is probably good for now because you feel the safety and security that Premise (1) will never stand (if that be the case).

A formal philosophical logician I am not. But I may play along with you for a bit. I do believe a Christian should expand himself. I've got a handy text book on Logic nearby. Maybe it can help me.

I'll say something latter about the parts of man besides the Emotion, Mind, and Will.
In the experience of God there is something deeper than the Mind, Emotion, and Will of man, though they are involved in spiritual matters too.

Latter for that though.

me:
Maybe it is. But a logical fallacy is just a weak formal argument. The logical argument may be weak but the truth it represents still be valid.

This post is long enough right here. Cont. below

So, if we consider the specific fallacy I was talking about, I'm afraid your arguments sort of resemble this type of fallacy:

(i) If there is no God, then there is no perfect justice (some rapists and murderers will get away scot-free, etc, etc).
(ii) "No perfect justice?!?" That would really suck!

This could be completely true though.

It could be that things "suck" which are not in harmony with how the Creator intended creation to go.

It may be the simple case that we, His creatures, are just not programmed to be happy when His will is not completely done.

Wouldn't it be strange if God made us to be able to be elated completely when the will of God is not done ? I mean we can choose that His will will not apply to us. But it cannot but "suck" eventually that we have that choice.

I think you could think on that too. " if God is Creator and Ultimate Administrator, how could He create me to be happy forever rejecting His will? "

People, really get after me about teaching of eternal punishment which came out of the mouth of Jesus. Maybe that place will be an escape one craves to get away from the self hatred of having rejected all well-being concerning themselves.

(iii) Therefore, there is a God.

I do see your problem with the argument.

The premises may be true, and even the conclusion may well be true. But of course the argument does not give one any good reason to accept the conclusion. In this case, the argument is clearly invalid.

At any rate, I'm not claiming that this is your argument. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that this is not an accurate reflection of your argument. But some of your reasoning shows hints of this sort of fallacy, which is not favorable. Regardless, I prefer to stick to the previous argument redescription I offered, which you said is fair but maybe needs some reformulation in Premise (1).

Do you think a more acceptable reason for our sense of injustice is because of determined reactions of chemicals in the grey matter of our brains, over which we have no rights to boast of "choosing" one attitude over another ?

Do you believe what you believe because of choosing to follow a better argument or because the chemicals fissing around as they collide, combine, and interact cause you to believe what you do ?

I guess I am asking if you are a total materialist here ?
Is free will to "choose" truth a reality or are you just fissing ?

Originally posted by DeepThought

Regarding (1), consider a geometrical figure like a circle. That no perfect circle is realized in nature does not seem to negate the concept of a circle. That there's an abstract unreachable standard doesn't cause us to claim that geometry is flawed in some way - so why do you apply this to morality?

Its a point about what we can find in nature.

But I guess I use the logic because we are all so very unhappy to hear about that murdering raping pedophile getting away. And if it should be our OWN child, the feeling is very intense. It is less intense, yet still there, when it was someone else's child.

Maybe you could explain why we don't just shrug it off completely.

With (2) one could construct a cosmology like the Buddhist one, with justice realized over reincarnations as some sort of natural force - but no actual god, at least in the sense of a personal God which a Christian would recognize.

My problem with reincarnation and justice is the same which i never was able to get a answer from Dasa.

If I come BACK as someone or something ELSE, I am gone. What reward or punishment that should be applied to ME is not. I am gone. Something or someone else is here.

If that rapist reaps bad Karma or something and is reincarnated as a leech, what does that do for him? It does nothing for him because he is NO MORE.

The leech would say "Yea, so I'm a leech. So what ??"

I just couldn't get Dasa to refute this. And now he's gone.
I am not expert on the difference or overlap of Buddhism and Hinduism.

This would seem to allow for justice being perfectly realized over lifetimes without a God.

If I come back in the next life as a tapeworm, i should be perfectly happy being a tapeworm. Me - sonship will be GONE ! And when the tapeworm comes back as an Albert Einstein or a Queen Elizabeth, the tapeworm will be GONE. It will have no such sensation of reward or punishment.

Am I right ?

To make my point the cosmology doesn't have to be true, it just weakens the claim that God is logically necessary for justice to be perfectly realized. We can imagine other mechanisms. So as a sort of ersatz ontological argument there's too many problems.

Well, isolated by itself that may be an argument. But I cannot get away from the accumulated case. I have this 2000 lib pound golden elephant in the living room of history called Jesus - the Son of God.

He gives me the uncanny suspicion that I am being watched, you are being watched, everyone is being watched. And i cannot send a worm to the last judgment on my behalf. I, me, sonship has an appointment.

You cannot stand in my place and I cannot stand in yours. We both stand within a circle before God in which no one else stands.

Thankfully ... THANKFULLY .. there is a plan for forgiveness and even transformation to be like Him.

By the way, and this is important to me - This matter of being intensely watched and recorded by God is not ONLY a matter of consequences for wrong doing. This matter of being minutely monitored by God has come in very well to me when circumstances called for me to have difficulty in getting from one minute to the next.

There have been times in my life when getting to the next minute was hard because of intense inward troubling. At such times it was a great comfort to be aware and in fellowship with Jesus Christ.

On a molecular level He was there to support and uphold me from SECOND to SECOND. So, God's intimate understanding of our every motive and action is not ONLY about being policed for some future punishment.

Why should it seem incredible that One who designed every machine in our cell to perform thousands of operations to maintain our body's well being, should not be intimately aware of our spiritual and psychological welfare also ?

Jesus Christ is not the enemy.

Originally posted by sonship

Regarding (1), consider a geometrical figure like a circle. That no perfect circle is realized in nature does not seem to negate the concept of a circle. That there's an abstract unreachable standard doesn't cause us to claim that geometry is flawed in some way - so why do you apply this to morality?

Its a point about what we can find in ...[text shortened]... ware of our spiritual and psychological welfare also ?

Jesus Christ is not the enemy.

Dude, yet again I am compelled to tell you that reincarnation is the journey of 'the same soul.' You are not a new soul every time you are reincarnated. (Karma would indeed been nonsensical if this were not the case). Lack of memory doesn't negate this karma or sense of justice/ comeuppance.

Dasa may not have answered you but i have done so at least 3 times now. 😞

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke

Dude, yet again I am compelled to tell you that reincarnation is the journey of 'the same soul.'

Do you recall ANYTHING about your previous incarnation ?
How about two or three incarnations back ?

Remember ANYTHING ?

You are not a new soul every time you are reincarnated. (Karma would indeed been nonsensical if this were not the case). Lack of memory doesn't negate this karma or sense of justice/ comeuppance.

I see.

From what suffering today are you being corrected from your previous incarnation's bad behavior? If you have no idea, what is to stop you from doing the same stupid errors in your next incarnation ?

Now you can learn from the past by studying the effects of past people's livess - what is better not to do and what is better to do. But that is different.

How are you benefiting today from good or bad performed in a previous incarnation? I bet you have no idea.

Dasa may not have answered you but i have done so at least 3 times now.

Thanks.
What good things have you chosen to do in reaction to adverse reincarnational consequences from your previous life ?

Name a couple of things.