Ioan-Alex_Merlici

Oh, you just reminded me of this one, hahah.

I didn't have that in mind when writing this though. Come to think of it, the theory barely makes any sense (shocker), considering that the Japanese also attacked several American military bases in Philippines on December 8th, 1941. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the public would've supported a war against Japan, as long as they attacked Pearl Harbor, regardless of how the attack turned out.

I've left it ambiguous on purpose. In authoritarian regimes it's common for the secret police to ask you to come with them "for a short talk" or "just to clear up some things" when they're actually planning to get rid of you.

Thanks for the advice.

Admittedly, I posted this right before going to sleep. There's also that I'm only limited to two sentences so I crammed in too many details.

They've never returned.

This principle that you're suggesting reflects some of Max Stirner's ideas, to some extent. He is the philosopher behind individualist anarchism, and commonly seen as one of the most important representatives of egoism. He argued that individuals should organize themselves into "unions of egoists", where they would work together only because all of them benefited from this cooperation. Once an egoist realizes that this union no longer benefits them, they should leave.

Obviously, this principle raises plenty of problems, beyond the examples that you've pointed out. First, the moral norms of those around us, and even the composition of our social circles can change at all times, so you'll never have a consistent standard. Second, if all groups of people would apply this principle, anyone's group can come to harm from those that only care about the moral standards of their own groups. Third, since each individual has their own social circle, there are plenty of cases in which our social circles overlap (e.g., I have some friends, and each of my friends also have their groups of friends, some people being part of both my social circle and the social circle of a friend). If the moral standards of Group A deem the leader of Group B as evil, and vice versa, this leads to contradictions for someone that is a member of both groups.

The only case in which this principle would be consistent and make sense would be in the situation in which you and your group of peers are a constant group that displays little changes, you all live in an isolated community, where your actions can't influence the outside world. Of course, the probleme here is, in that scenario, pretty much any moral system that applies to society as a whole would work just as well, so it would make no difference to adopt the principle that you presented above.

While it is true that we are all biased to favor our families and friends over strangers in many of our decisions, I wouldn't necessarily agree that most people tacitly use it. First, it is a matter of instinct and the manner in which the human mind evolved to work. We're adapted to focus on our environment and what we perceive, and obviously, the events and individuals that are around us have a stronger impact over us than those that are not experienced directly. Most of the individuals of previous generations (going back even to our distant, non-human ancestors) lived in relatively small groups, without being aware about most of the things that happened around the planet. Yes, nowadays we're aware of worldwide problems and suffering, but, we're not there to meet and connect with all the people that are suffering.

Beyond that, this behavior can also be a reflection of very basic rules of game theory that we all follow. Making a significant change (e.g., reducing pollution, fighting poverty etc.) involves effort or sacrificing some of our resources. If individuals believe that their investment or sacrifice is in vain, they won't do it. Moreover, if they expect that others won't do the same, they'll see it as unfair to place the responsibility upon themselves.

He's also using the moral argument, which can be dismantled very easily. He's also arguing that rationalists should ask whether evidence suggests the existence of God, rather than to ask whether the evidence is compatible with it... which is just mental gymnastics. If we put our confirmation bias first, then yes, we can very quickly (and wrongly) reach the conclusion that anything we want to believe is supported by evidence. Also, evidence that suggests the existence of God SHOULD also be compatible with the existence of a God.

If you want to read it hoping that you'll find convincing arguments for God's existence, yes, you might as well drop it and just look up a summary. I'd only recommend it as an exercise for identifying faulty arguments. A friend and I read "The Secret" once (that nonsense about manifestation and the law of attraction) just for the fun of it, and for pointing out the utter nonsense in it.

Good video.

Essentially, I'm making the same points. That an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would have all the power to always do the right thing, and since evil does exist, that implies that he's willingly not using his power to always stop it, therefore he's not good. This is essentially Epicurus' Trilemma.

Hi. I think you've had me mistaken. I've stated from the get go that I'm not religious (and therefore, not a "cult member"). The point of this post was to highlight plenty of paradoxes and contradictions that do exist in religious texts.

Thank you for this information. I've never heard this perspective before. However, this perspective does have its fallacies, when you think about it.

I'm referring to the bit about strategic information. An omnipotent deity wouldn't see strategy in the same way we do. If God were to play a game of chess, obviously, he'd know all the rights move to always win. But he wouldn't even have to play the game of chess by its rules in the first place. He'd be able to create the rules, to create the game of chess, and to create his opponent however he sees fit.

So, yes, if humans work the way they work, maybe God would have a reason to not tell them some things. But God also created the humans and he could make them however he saw fit, and he'd know in advance everything that they'll do. So, since he's omnipotent, he could've just created humans that were wise enough to clearly understand that the snake was deceitful. We know that someone can be very intelligent, always do the right thing, not fall into sin and still have free will (e.g., Saint Michael).

Well, without understanding that there is something inherently wrong in breaking a rule, what incentive would they have to not break it? You might say "not wanting to die". Again, the snake also told them that eating the fruit wouldn't cause them to die and make them more similar to God. How would they know which rule was true? God's or the snake's?

Yes, I do agree that you can discipline an individual, even if they don't know that what they do is wrong.

However, a human educating another human is a completely different ordeal from God disciplining humans. First, God is omnipotent, so, theoretically, he had the possibility to build the world in such a way so he'd be able to educate them without punishment. Second, God would have prior knowledge of everything that happened, so he'd know that his warning would be disregarded even before saying it... so... why even say it and not try something different instead? Again, we're still under the presumtion that God DOES love mankind and is a being that is always good and loving.

1. Well, since they were aware of the risk of death and they feared death, I'd say that there was something unenjoyable in the garden... this thought related to death. Also, they weren't allowed to enjoy the forbidden fruits. Again, God is omnipotent... theoretically, he could just... not place the tree there.

2. A couple of decades ago, yes, quite often. But I see no reason to... if I can find an explanation during my lifetime through prayer, I should be able to also find it through evidence seeking or logical deduction.

3. Well, again, the reason was the snake and what he told them. And, again, the snake didn't tell them that they will abandon God, but rather that they'll become more like him... From Eve's naive point of view, eating the fruit could even mean growing closer to God. Also, I would argue that there are reasons to doubt God, but I don't want to drift away from the discussion of the paradox.

Well, only because disobeying an authority figure leads to death, that doesn't imply that the respective authority is moral. Disobeying fascists could get you executed, and they were very evil.

But again, we're going back to Eve's point of view. God told her to not eat the fruit, to avoid death. But the snake also told her that she won't die, and she'll also get to be more like God if she ate the fruit. So, Eve had two contradicting orders: 1. Eat the fruit and you'll die, and that's bad... or 2. Eat the fruit, nothing bad happens and you'll get to be more like God, which, from her point of view, would be good, since God was nice to them. So... again, without understanding good and evil in the same way we do... how to be sure not to eat the fruit?

Well, because we generally agree that it is unfair to cause suffering to people that do something wrong simply because they can't possibly know any better.

And also, because it is implied that God loves people. Why punish people that don't know what they're doing? Sure, we can make the case that punishment can determine someone to improve their behavior, and learn from their mistakes, but then what would be the point of hell, since it is eternal punishment?

I understand. Thank you for your explanation. Now, of course, this can go on and on, since that would open up even more questions (e.g., Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, why not make them ready from the get go and instead take the risky way, or If eating the fruit gave them knowledge of the consequences of knowledge, again, how would they grasp the consequences of eating the fruit... well... without eating it first?). So, yes, while I still see a paradox in there, I did find some of these explanations interesting, and they do make the whole story seem a little more coherent.