If evil is synonymous with things that go against God's will and good is synonymous with things that are according to his will, why should I care...

If evil is synonymous with things that go against God's will and good is synonymous with things that are according to his will, why should I care about doing good and not doing evil?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you don't he'll throw you to magic lava.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because that's your purpose.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But that literally just means that it's something god wants me to do. Why should I care?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because that is your purpose. The "ought" is answered. You may still cope by "well I ain't finna do it", which is definitely within the realm of possibilities, but ought-questions are answered by intentionality. This is the intentionality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          But this "ought" literally just translated to "god wants you to do it". I still don't see a reason to care.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then you must be blind because the reason is stated right here:

            Because that's your purpose.

            Re-phrase it any way you like and doubt it in any way possible. It is a reason.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the Christian framework, saying that it's my purpose is synonymous with saying that god wants me to do it. That's not some rhetorical trick, it's just the facts.
            I still haven't heard why I should care that god is wants me to do X. Saying that I should care that god wants me to do X because it's my purpose is synonymous with saying I should care that god wants me to do X because god wants me to do X.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I still haven't heard why I should care that god is wants me to do X.
            My bad. Because that's your purpose.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Saying that I should care that god wants me to do X because it's my purpose is synonymous with saying I should care that god wants me to do X because god wants me to do X.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I still haven't heard why I should care that god is wants me to do X
            Because otherwise you'll get sent to eternal rape orgy torment dimensions to suffer from infinite torture. Self-interests man, that's why you should care. Being tortured forever sucks balls, so people should rather submit to God. Evil and good ain't got nothing to do with this, it's about making the rational choice in an universe with an omnipotent being with a capability and willingness to make mortals suffer unimaginable torture.

            So don't fricking mix linen with wool and praise jebus, simple as.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You ought to do what God wants you to do because... you just should, okay!
          So if God told you that his reason for creating you was to torture you in hell, but you could also choose to spend eternity in paradise, you'd choose hell?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But whatever I end up doing was his will anyway, and my purpose. Again, bossman already handled it so why should I care? Me not caring is his will. Me making this shitpost is his will.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >whatever I end up doing was his will anyway
        If you believe in a deterministic God, yes. That is not the God of the major religions.
        >why should I care?
        Because that is your purpose.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does it hurt when I pee?
    >"STD" just means "something wrong", but why hurt?
    >So what about the neurons and bacteria? Why do they hurtttt

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just use a rubber, Black person.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But why hurt?? Nobody can answer this!!

        >You ought to do what God wants you to do because... you just should, okay!
        So if God told you that his reason for creating you was to torture you in hell, but you could also choose to spend eternity in paradise, you'd choose hell?

        No, I wouldn't. I'd choose paradise. But I would be violating the 'ought' by doing so.

        >Saying that I should care that god wants me to do X because it's my purpose is synonymous with saying I should care that god wants me to do X because god wants me to do X.

        >If I sound dumb enough it sounds like I have an argument

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you genuinely not understand what I'm saying here

          >Saying that I should care that god wants me to do X because it's my purpose is synonymous with saying I should care that god wants me to do X because god wants me to do X.

          ?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I absolutely do. I also understand that it's not actually an argument. It's just an expression of dissatisfaction with the answer. You don't actually have a counter-argument, Anon. Just like

            >Why does it hurt when I pee?
            >"STD" just means "something wrong", but why hurt?
            >So what about the neurons and bacteria? Why do they hurtttt

            illustrates, the perpetual "why tho" is just a sophistic tactic.

            >No, I wouldn't. I'd choose paradise. But I would be violating the 'ought' by doing so.
            Would you feel guilty about making that choice? I wouldn't.

            Who knows?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's just an expression of dissatisfaction with the answer.
            You're right that if I ask "why should I care that god wants me to do X", I don't consider "because god wants you to do X" a satisfying answer. Why do you think that I should?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it answers the question. Again, refer to the STD example if you're struggling to realize how come "why tho" was a viable response in your mind.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see how that answers the question. The STD example relates to my subjective preference not to have STDs, and I can easily fulfil that preference by using a rubber or only fricking women I trust and who got tested recently.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The STD example isn't about preference whatsoever. It's about a dumbass asking "but why" every time he gets a legitimate answer. Which he can do indefinitely even if his question is actually answered. As seein in this thread.

            >I can easily fulfil that preference by using a rubber
            Why would you do that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The STD example isn't about preference whatsoever.
            Of course it is. The only reason why I care about STDs is that I subjectively prefer not to have them.
            >Why would you do that?
            Because I like having sex with various women and I don't want to get an STD. Using a rubber fulfills those preferences really well.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why I care about STDs
            Not mentioned in

            >Why does it hurt when I pee?
            >"STD" just means "something wrong", but why hurt?
            >So what about the neurons and bacteria? Why do they hurtttt

            >>Why would you do that?
            >Because I like having sex with various women and I don't want to get an STD
            Wow ok well that can get re-iterated as "I would fulfill my preference of not getting STDs because my preference is not getting STDs". lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not mentioned in

            >Why does it hurt when I pee?


            >"STD" just means "something wrong", but why hurt?
            >So what about the neurons and bacteria? Why do they hurtttt #
            You mean why things hurt? Idk the specifics of how nociception works, I'm not a biologist. How is that relevant?
            >Wow ok well that can get re-iterated as "I would fulfill my preference of not getting STDs because my preference is not getting STDs". lol
            Yeah I do things that I prefer because I prefer them. Seems like you think you got yourself a gotcha, but what you missed is that your preferences already have motivations baked in by default - in fact, that's what preferences are.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nociception
            Ok but why does it hurtttt just answer whyyyyy
            >How is that relevant?
            It's about a dumbass asking "but why" every time he gets a legitimate answer. Which he can do indefinitely even if his question is actually answered. As seein in this thread.
            >preferences already have motivations baked in by default
            I wasn't asking about motivation. I was asking about a reason. Why would you prefer that?
            I did get my gotcha, friend. If you need me to draw it out like you did and just keep re-iterating your answer in silly ways, we can certainly do that.

            But at the end of the day it will be apparent that all questions in this thread were answered.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ok but why does it hurtttt just answer whyyyyy
            Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking.
            >It's about a dumbass asking "but why" every time he gets a legitimate answer.
            I don't consider your answer legitimate, it doesn't explain anything.
            >I wasn't asking about motivation. I was asking about a reason. Why would you prefer that?
            No reason, I just do. Why is that a problem?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking.
            Just asking why it hurts when I pee. I don't consider your answer legitimate, it doesn't explain anything.
            >No reason, I just do. Why is that a problem?
            Because I asked the reason. So you don't have an answer?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Just asking why it hurts when I pee. I don't consider your answer legitimate, it doesn't explain anything.
            It makes sense that you're not satisfied with my answer. I'm not a biologist, virologist or any other related -ist, so I'm not very qualified to answer it.
            >Because I asked the reason. So you don't have an answer?
            My answer is that I don't have a reason. Why is that a problem?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My answer is that I don't have a reason. Why is that a problem?
            Because I asked the reason.

            It sounds like you're just making the most basic version of a circular argument.
            >How can we prove x?
            >Simple. x, therefore x.

            We're not proving anything. We're addressing reasons, which will always be possible to re-iterate in a circular fashion if you push them far enough. I thought I would have a hard time proving this but the Anon above was intellectually honest enough to admit that he cannot answer even his own "why" or "ought" in any way that would escape this sophistic lever.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because I asked the reason.
            And I answered it. What's the issue there? Does the fact that I don't have a reason make you upset somehow?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You just said you didn't have a reason. Which is a problem if the reason is the thing we were after lol
            This goes to show 2 things:
            1) It seems no ought-question can actually be answered in your eyes (since you said "no reason" even for your own wants)
            2) You have an odd gap in understanding how questions relate to answers and why the disconnect between the question and the answer would be a problem

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But anon, I'm not saying that I ought to frick various women. I'm saying that I prefer fricking various women. That's just a description of my mental state, not a normative statement.
            >You have an odd gap in understanding how questions relate to answers and why the disconnect between the question and the answer would be a problem
            Should I lie to you about having a reason if I genuinely don't have one? If I ask you why you're an atheist, would it be a problem if you answered "I'm not an atheist"?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then you didn't answer my question either way. Because I asked why.
            >Should I lie to you about having a reason if I genuinely don't have one?
            You probably do have one. But again, in your eyes ought-questions cannot be answered in general. That's what causes this thread to exist - you ask a question that you don't accept answers to.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If I ask you why you're an atheist, would it be a problem if you answered "I'm not an atheist"?
            >You probably do have one.
            Bad faith argument.
            >But again, in your eyes ought-questions cannot be answered in general.
            I haven't found a way to do it, true. The issue is that in defense of ought questions, the best you can do is "you ought to do what god wants because it's what god wants". That's weak.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I ask you why you're an atheist, would it be a problem if you answered "I'm not an atheist"?
            Yes.
            >>You probably do have one.
            >Bad faith argument.
            Lmao granting someone the benefit of the doubt is the exact opposite of bad faith, Anon.
            >>I haven't found a way to [answer ought-questions], true.
            This is the bad faith. Asking a question you don't accept any answers to. The entire discussion becomes pointless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes.
            Alright then. Why are you an atheist?
            >This is the bad faith. Asking a question you don't accept any answers to.
            It's not that I don't accept any answers, I just don't see how your answer does anything. "You ought to do what god wants because god wants it." Really?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you an atheist?
            I'm not an atheist.
            >It's not that I don't accept any answers
            Yes it is. We established that you cannot even answer your own ought-questions, you quite literally do not recognize any theoretical answer to them as valid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not an atheist.
            Why didn't you answer my question?
            >Yes it is. We established that you cannot even answer your own ought-questions, you quite literally do not recognize any theoretical answer to them as valid.
            I don't recognize any answer you've given as valid. I would change my mind if someone gave me something better than "You ought to do what god wants because it's what god wants", lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why didn't you answer my question?
            Because it is loaded.
            >I don't recognize any answer you've given as valid.
            Because you don'trecognize any answer in general as valid.
            >I would change my mind if someone gave me something better than ...
            And yet you yourself could not. Meaning you don't accept any theoretical answer to that question.

            Meaning this thread is in its entirety bad faith.
            inb4 "so what?"

            >This is the bad faith. Asking a question you don't accept any answers to. The entire discussion becomes pointless.
            It wouldn't be pointless if you could provide them with an answer they haven't heard before, but if all you can do is stamp your foot and say that your position is right because it just is, then it's pretty pointless.

            >it's pretty pointless
            Asking questions you don't accept answers to usually is.
            You can frame it as "oh damn yall didn't convince me again" but when you have zero criteria to what would actually convince you, the problem is not us. It's you. No shirt is the right fit for a man with no body, you've set this up for failure and now you try to shift the blame on others.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it is loaded.
            So was yours.
            >Because you don'trecognize any answer in general as valid.
            Nope, I just haven't been given any good one.
            >And yet you yourself could not. Meaning you don't accept any theoretical answer to that question.
            I've never come across such an answer, but that doesn't mean it does not exist. I've changed my views on philosophical topics in the past after coming across new ideas that I didn't know about before then.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So was yours.
            Might be. So what?

            you don'trecognize any answer in general as valid.
            >Nope
            Proof?

            >I've never come across such an answer, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.
            If you yourself cannot even conceive of the format that an answer would have to have, that is pretty sufficient to establish that you don't accept any answer to the question. Perhaps you will realize this later on, but until then you'll just be looking forever and Anons will scratch their head over your approach.

            >>>what is 2+2? And don't say 4, give me a real answer!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is the bad faith. Asking a question you don't accept any answers to. The entire discussion becomes pointless.
            It wouldn't be pointless if you could provide them with an answer they haven't heard before, but if all you can do is stamp your foot and say that your position is right because it just is, then it's pretty pointless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It sounds like you're just making the most basic version of a circular argument.
            >How can we prove x?
            >Simple. x, therefore x.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >No, I wouldn't. I'd choose paradise. But I would be violating the 'ought' by doing so.
          Would you feel guilty about making that choice? I wouldn't.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you want to do bad things though? It makes no sense. Good things are good. Everyone wants good things.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Good things are good. Everyone wants good things.
      Remember that good just means things that are in accordance with god's will. Why should I want that?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read it the other way around. Things in accordance with God's will are the set of good things in general. You want good things, everyone does. The problem is when due to ignorance and error you accidentally do things that are bad for you.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Read it the other way around. Things in accordance with God's will are the set of good things in general.
          That would mean that the good is external to god. Basic Euthyphro dilemma stuff.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good things in the created world are good thanks to their similarity to God's goodness, at least according to people like Aquinas. According to Platonists God = good. Literally, as in, in God lies the origin of all good things. Most Christians believe in something similar. It makes no sense to say that something is good and that it's goodness doesn't come from God.

            https://i.imgur.com/Grjd0tB.jpg

            There are good things in that it feels bad when you suffer infinite torture for eternity. But morality hasn't got anything to do with it, there's no goodness or evil. There's just submitting to omnipotent being willing to torment you with infinite pain if you do not submit. Evil and good are superfluous concepts, there's just the impetus to avoid unimaginable pain.

            If someone where to kidnap you and make you play their game or suffer torture, you would play it not because not playing it would be evil and playing it would thus be good. You would play it because being tortured sucks, so playing the games gives you a chance to avoid torture.

            The whole basis of Christian morality is basically being trapped in a Saw movie.

            >There are good things in that it feels bad when you suffer infinite torture for eternity.
            What? Anyway, as to the rest of the post, God doesn't punish you because you did bad things as if he was your white bearded father in the skies. You specifically choose orient yourself towards things that are bad, decide to abandon God, and then get confused why you arrived at a bad situation. God frees you from that, by giving you being, goodness, and a way out.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Good things in the created world are good thanks to their similarity to God's goodness
            This just means that things that are similar to god are similar to god. So what?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it doesn't mean just that lol you left out the entire moral aspect of it. Try re-iterating again, you didn't get it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Morality on the christian view is identical to god's will. Moral things are those that are in accordance with god's will. So what?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So your question was answered.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see the problem then. Why would you want to go away from God? That is, why would you want bad things?

            Because I'm a totally different kind of being from God. I have my own interests and concerns that might have nothing to do with God's will.

            According to Plato and Aristotle, if you want to live a good life as a rational being you ought to be ethical. That is, being good is in your best interests, and doing bad things is an error that comes from misjudging something that is bad as being good, or something that is a temporary good as being better than a longer lasting good, or something similar. Many other philosophers agree, although it's not unanimous of course.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see the problem then. Why would you want to go away from God?
            Why would I want to go towards god? "Because it's good" just means "because it's in accordance with god's will", and we're right back where we started.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, I don't get your point. Everyone wants their own good, and to get away from bad things. Even when you want bad things in error, it's because you want the good that is in them, like the high you get from harmful drugs for example. I don't get why you would want to do bad things, or to have bad things happen to you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, I don't get your point. Everyone wants their own good, and to get away from bad things.
            This translates to "everyone wants things that are in accordance with god's will and to get away from things that go against god's will", but that's not actually true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we're right back where we started
            So what?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So I still have no reason to care about god's will.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >According to Plato and Aristotle, if you want to live a good life as a rational being you ought to be ethical. That is, being good is in your best interests, and doing bad things is an error that comes from misjudging something that is bad as being good, or something that is a temporary good as being better than a longer lasting good, or something similar. Many other philosophers agree, although it's not unanimous of course.
            I more or less agree with them, our ethics should be grounded in human flourishing. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with obeying the will of God, if there even is a God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ethics = the will of God for theists. Again, let's look at the Thomistic stance for example. God is the first effective cause of all things, and has their perfections pre-existing in him. Thus the perfection of all things is in God and comes from God. Therefore if you want humans to flourish, you're saying you want the highest human perfection as a goal. That perfection exists in God and comes from him, therefore you're doing his will.

            >Again, I don't get your point. Everyone wants their own good, and to get away from bad things.
            This translates to "everyone wants things that are in accordance with god's will and to get away from things that go against god's will", but that's not actually true.

            Why not?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ethics = the will of God for theists. Again, let's look at the Thomistic stance for example. God is the first effective cause of all things, and has their perfections pre-existing in him. Thus the perfection of all things is in God and comes from God. Therefore if you want humans to flourish, you're saying you want the highest human perfection as a goal. That perfection exists in God and comes from him, therefore you're doing his will.
            In that case, that would be a good reason to follow God's will. Practically speaking, though, I would consider it irrelevant since I think making decisions based on ethical reasoning like Aristotle's would be more reliable than trying to directly discern the will of God based on theology or revelation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In that we are in agreement, as while I'm a theist I'm not Christian. But that is the gist of their reasoning, they mix philosophy with revelation. So if we're using Aristotle as an example, let's say you're a Christian and you think his ideas about ethics are really good. But at some point Jesus said something that goes against Aristotle. The Christian philosopher or theologist will then argue that "achshually Aristotle was wrong on this point and here is why" and they will use a mix of reasoning and revelation to have their cake and eat it too. You see Aquinas do it in the Summa.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God doesn't punish you because you did bad things as if he was your white bearded father in the skies. You specifically choose orient yourself towards things that are bad, decide to abandon God, and then get confused why you arrived at a bad situation. God frees you from that, by giving you being, goodness, and a way out.
            Judgment day implies that God judges. Sinners get sent to hell. God sends them there. God sentences sinners to eternity in rape orgy dimension with infinite torture. There's no goodness or evil, they are superfluous concepts. It's about God punishing those who don't submit.

            Just like there's no morality in our secular justice system. Judge punishes criminals according to law and sentences them to prison. But unless you have extremely in legalistic world view, law is not about goodness or evil. Our law books aren't the source of objective morality. We don't break the law because we think law is morally good, we don't break the law because we don't want to be punished or don't see the need to. But law isn't goodness, it is just law.

            Just like God's will is law, and judgment is punishment. There's no goodness or evil here, just submission out of fear. Like would this sentence make any sense to some one being sent to secular prison:
            >You specifically choose orient yourself towards things that are bad, decide to abandon law, and then get confused why you arrived at a bad situation. Law frees you from that, by giving you being, goodness, and a way out.
            ?
            Law doesn't give you a way out. Law restricts through punishment. Law isn't goodness. Law is law.

            Only difference here is that God's judgment and sentences are infinitely more cruel and painful, where even death doesn't give release. Eternal torture. Not even the vilest psychopath could create such a system.

            So yeah, I can understand some criminals because 10 years in prison ain't nothing relative to potential gains from crime. But going against God? Not worth it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There are good things in that it feels bad when you suffer infinite torture for eternity. But morality hasn't got anything to do with it, there's no goodness or evil. There's just submitting to omnipotent being willing to torment you with infinite pain if you do not submit. Evil and good are superfluous concepts, there's just the impetus to avoid unimaginable pain.

      If someone where to kidnap you and make you play their game or suffer torture, you would play it not because not playing it would be evil and playing it would thus be good. You would play it because being tortured sucks, so playing the games gives you a chance to avoid torture.

      The whole basis of Christian morality is basically being trapped in a Saw movie.

  5. 2 months ago
    ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

    BETTER QUESTION: WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because I'm a totally different kind of being from God. I have my own interests and concerns that might have nothing to do with God's will.

      • 2 months ago
        ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇

        WHAT IS GOOD LEADS TO GOD; WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO EVIL?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>>Why X?
    Y.
    >Meh, so what? Why X???
    Never disappoints

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like
      >Why X?
      >Because X.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        My bad

        >>>Why X?
        Y.
        >Meh, X, Y, what's the difference? Why X???

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They are the same according to christian theology. Not my problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It really does seem like you have a problem with it lol

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >So What? - the thread

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anyways lads this thread was fun, have fun posting without me if you want.
    t. op (is a homosexual)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      thread is pretty much over

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I just thought it would be rude to leave without saying bye.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    FRICK NO DON'T TRY FOR PERFECTION! Don't you morons remember last time humanity tried that with that tower in Babylon and God got pissed as frick and scrambled our languages making humanity to go to war against itself?

    Don't fricking even think about striving for that, just praise jesus and keep your heads low.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >omnipotent
    >things going against his will
    not even mentioning an omnipotent being even having a will. will is what we experience when and as long as things aren't the way we'd prefer them to be. omnipotent = this duration is always 0.

Comments are closed.