Logical argument in favour of dualism.

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Re: Logical argument in favour of dualism.

Postby TheNewGuy » Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:32 am

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:I maintain that you're creating strawmen in a lot of your "arguments against."


I'm arguing against the most well known beliefs in each category (i.e. Abrahamic monotheism, "chaotic" polytheism and naturalistic atheism). There's not much need to explain why dualism is superior to, say, scientology because few people believe in it (with most already recognizing it as irrational).


Well known to you, perhaps, but you don't have to argue the Scientology-extreme to find some pretty unusual and hard-to-stereotype sub-strands of belief (Roman Catholics venerate Saints as near-gods, for instance, and pray to them for intervention, while protestant churches question even the worldly right of priests to interpret God's commands). Isn't it a bit much to assume for all monotheistic religions that they accept the existence of a "Omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient" being? You're oversimplifying for the sake of making monotheism easier to target as a whole, which is strawman construction at its finest :)

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:It's very hard to construct a realistic picture of the actual logic that goes into belief structures. "Omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", and "omniscient" are all stereotypical suppositions about monotheistic belief that cannot be said prima facea to apply in all cases.

It is possible, for instance, to believe in a God who is both-at-once benevolent and malevolent. It is also oversimplification to suspect that benevolence and malevolence are the only two forces possible, and it is further a leap to suppose that benevolence and malevolence are necessarily opposing forces.


I believe that benevolence and malevolence are inherently and fundamentally incompatible with each other by virtue of joy being a zero-sum game (pleasure - pain = joy), yet I also believe that benevolence and malevolence are partially objective (pleasure is good, sufferance is bad; benevolence promotes pleasure, malevolence promotes sufferance) and partially subjective (i.e. what's good for the predator is bad for the prey, what's good for the prey is bad for the predator).

Thus, I would consider your argument to be completely valid if I was to assume that there is one god who is not acting in the interest of humans, but rather in the interest of some other beings who are completely unlike humans in nature. Such a god would be seen by humans as simultaneously benevolent and malevolent, whilst in reality having a "blue and orange" spectrum of morality perfectly tailored to the beings who are the centre of his attention. However, this brings up three new questions: what creatures has this god centred his morality around, why has he centred his morality around them and why is he forcing humans to follow their moral code?

Under dualism, the good god is omnibenevolent (benevolent to all humans), whilst the evil god is omnimalevolent (malevolent to all humans). It is also worth noting that benevolence is not pacifism (thus the benevolent god will gladly allow sufferance in order to prevent a greater amount of sufferance, stop those who promote malevolence or otherwise promote a benevolent cause, such as by promoting a revolutionary war), and that malevolence is not mindless violence (thus the malevolent god will gladly allow pleasure in order to prevent a greater amount of pleasure, preserve those who promote malevolence or otherwise promote a malevolent cause, such as by promoting dictatorship).


Lots of false conclusions here which I think Amaz is hinting at in his post - "Joy" shouldn't be seen as a zero-sum game. At the risk of continuing your (I think) flawed appeal to mathematics, it is my contention that often pain can multiply the intensity of pleasure, and vice versa. It is not merely addition and subtraction, and it's very reductive (as has been mentioned elsewhere) to understand the human experience in only black and white, and also to interpret malevolence = pain, benevolence = pleasure.

Why do you feel that a deity has to act "in the interest" of humans, or of any entity outside of itself? Are the Two in your dualist paradigm acting "in the interest" of humans, or of some other thing? You seem to understand that they are not - they are simply acting in their natures - one malevolently, one benevolently. In order to assume that this balance somehow is in the interest of humans or of some other thing outside of the Two themselves, we must then presuppose that "Human (or whatever, Klingon) Interest" is the true one Divinity - it is that which the Two exist in order to bring about. That is, therefore, still a monotheistic belief (the Two exist for the sake of the One). If we don't assume that human/other interest should factor into the equation, then your argument against monotheism on that front fails. God does not have to "answer" or "explain" His actions or creation(s) in terms of their impact on humanity or any other creature which He has created - God acts in the interest of God, otherwise he is not God but it only an agent of some other, higher Interest which He serves. God, therefore, is the "Logic" to which you state your Two must answer fundamentally. 1+1 = 2 because God created the Universe with that mathematical construction. There is no Logic beyond the One, a Logic which could have created a Universe where 1+1 = 6 and therefore God would have to be essentially different; if 1+1 = 6, God would still exist as He does, it is only the Universe he had created which would be different.

I contend, still, that your system is monotheistic, it is merely monotheism-a-step-removed.

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:My own area of strongest knowledge is in Judaism (though my knowledge is admittedly shallow), and an argument can be made (as an example. Many arguments can be made for the most inherent value in a deity) that God is neither benevolent nor malevolent, but is in fact just.


Justice can be explained more simply as a human intellectual construct based on an intrinsic desire to competitively maximise pleasure and minimize pain (humans naturally want to simultaneously maximize their own pleasure and their enemies' suffering), derived from humanity's instinctive participation in the perpetual struggle between the two gods (most humans are naturally benevolent and seek to defeat what is evil, but being flawed, can be manipulated into following malevolent leaders and seeking to defeat what is good).

If a god with his own concept of justice has created humanity, why does our concept justice differ so much from his? Why does he want us to follow a plan we cannot comprehend, when he could have made us all understand it?


How can you maintain that "most humans are naturally benevolent?" Shouldn't we be, in your balanced dualist paradigm, roughly balanced in our distribution between good- and bad-natured? You seem to harbor a bias in favor of the benevolent God, but why? Why is it that malevolence should be seen as a flaw (why must we be manipulated to follow malevolent leaders?) and not rather as a facet of human existence? If both Good and Evil exist as deities, why would humans be naturally inclined toward one or the other, and not naturally neutral?

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:Seen through the lens of justice, acts attributed to God that appear to be benevolent or malevolent to humanity could in fact be parts in a larger Divine plan which will bring about justice in the end of times and which humanity cannot even fathom in our short and limited lives.


This brings up a variant of the problem of doubt. If there is only one god whose justice is incomprehensible, this will lead many to doubt him (and consequently incur his wrath). Can an omnipotent god who purposely creates a rigged system, which strongly encourages prohibited acts and deters proscribed ones, truly be called "just"? If so, why did this omniscient god need to create a "neutral plane" where all humans are subject to his manipulation? Why does he not, knowing who is bound for reward and who is bound for punishment, simply place all individuals directly in either heaven or hell?


Why should doubt be assumed to incur the wrath of a monotheistic God? Perhaps doubt in the human mind is part of God's plan. Even the most stalwart believers experience it(cf. Jesus' temptations). Why should doubt be seen as prohibited? It is in overcoming doubt - in believing despite the bodily inclination to do otherwise - (in the act of faith) that most of the monotheistic religions root themselves, at least to my understanding. In Judaism doubt is happily encouraged (thus the long tradition of Talmudic Commentaries).

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:My argument, essentially, is one that you have not yet addressed, namely: God acts in ways that man cannot fathom, for reasons that man cannot comprehend.


If that is the case, this god is not omnipotent nor omniscient, as he must act in a certain way (by creating and following a plan he cannot explain to us) in order to produce a desired effect he cannot directly control. If this god is bound by an uncontrollable need only he can comprehend, where does this need come from and why can he not explain it to those who must follow him?


Just because He acts in a way that is incomprehensible to humanity does not mean that He must act in that way. When did I ever imply that God had an "uncontrollable need" to be incomprehensible to humanity? We instead can assume that He acts in such a way because it is in accordance with His plan, and therefore not rob him of omnipotence (though I still contend that He need not even be omnipotent in order to be God). It is perfectly possible that He could tell us the plan in utterly comprehensible human terms - but why should he be expected to, particularly if we dispense ourselves of the very selfish notion that He exists in order to serve us rather than the other way around?

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:You explained above that you're using the principle of Occam's Razor in your reasoning. We therefore are required to not presuppose the existence of "higher" beings to which our deities are bound. If your argument for two separate and independent deities will stand, then it must stand without the assumption of some binding "force" to which the two are subject.


This binding "force" is not a deity. It is simply a law which exists by virtue of mathematical limitation (just as 1+1 cannot = 6, a god cannot act in a way which is inconceivable).


Addressed above.

Lizard250 wrote:
TheNewGuy wrote:1. If the Two are independent (meaning that the Universe could exist without one or the other, although the Universe would be essentially different) but subject to a Force without which they would either not exist or they would exist as One:
1a. We should just understand the Force (heh!) as the most supreme, inherent, and necessary piece of the equation. We then are engaged in a different but similar conversation: why does the Force require the Two, and not simply rule as One?
2. If the Two are co-dependent (meaning that both are necessary for the existence of the other, that if one were to disappear the Universe would end) and subject to a Force without which they would either not exist or they would exist as One:
2a. We should simply understand them as One, and we should still understand the Force as supreme. We don't change much from our question in 1a., namely: why does the Force require the Two-who-are-One, and not simply rule as One?
3. If the Two are co-dependent and not subject to a Force higher:
3a. We should simply understand them as One, because they are co-dependent. This is the argument I was making in my last post.
4. The most firm argument you can make for Dualism, in my opinion, is therefore that there are Two who are independent, who could exist without one another, though the Universe would be essentially different. Some difficulties extend from this:
4a. From whence do the Two come?
4b. If both are not necessary for the existence of the other, why has one not triumphed over the other? Why, in essence, do we need Two if One could do, even if the existence of One would mean a fundamentally different Universe? Occam's Razor requires us to suppose the existence of One, unless there is some necessity for the existence of the Second.


1. This "force", being "mathematical" in nature, "requires" two opposed deities because two opposed deities are the most logical and simple explanation for the nature of the universe.


Again, I maintain that if you're going to argue this, you need to acknowledge that the "Mathematical Force" is the true central deity in your paradigm - and thus your paradigm is monotheistic. If the Mathematical Force requires something, it is from the Mathematical Force that the two required, dependent entities spring. They are tools of the Mathematical Force and would not exist except to satisfy the requirements of that Force, just as vehicles would not exist except to satisfy the needs of humanity to move between two places swiftly. They are begotten, created to serve a purpose, and are thus not deities.

Lizard250 wrote:2. The force requires the two to be separate, as only two separate individuals can truly oppose each other logically and consistently in a manner which results in physical conflict.


See above. I'm fine with you envisioning them as two opposing equalities, so long as we both recognize that they are opposing equalities which exist in order to serve the higher nature of the Force above them. They exist as caveats to the existence of the One.

Lizard250 wrote:3. Neither can triumph over the other as both are completely equal in power. Thus they are neither truly codependent nor truly independent, as they can exist independently (which would profoundly change the nature of the universe by turning it into either heaven or hell) but cannot achieve independence (as they can only be separated by their own actions, but neither has enough power to achieve victory over the other).
4. The two are eternal "personifications" of benevolence and malevolence.


See below and above. You're now straying into the logical problems you ascribe to atheism (how did these two opposing forces come to absolute balance spontaneously without some higher power), unless of course you accept that a higher power exists which balanced them first.

Amazeroth wrote:I could go into much more detail, but unless you want me to I don't want to disturb the ongoing discussion.


I hope you will - you're not disturbing but adding to the conversation, and you've got more knowledge (as I recall) of Roman Catholicism and its tenets than I can hope to argue for.

Lizard250 wrote:
Hrafn wrote:
3. If there is no god whatsoever, then life requires unnecessarily complicated explanations in order to make logical sense.

Like what?


The following are some of the "fundamental pillars" of mainstream atheism which require extremely complex explanations:
- Existence creating and stabilizing itself through random chance.
- Energy originating from nothingness.
- Matter being created from nothing.
- Abiogenesis through random chance.


How are these addressed by your dualist paradigm? How were the Gods created, and how did they come to stability? From whence does their power come, and how is it that both powers came to exist along side and exactly equally opposed to one another?
I once was full of promise. Oops.
The artist formerly known as Zanz, Troll King, Scourge of Dynastia and Confidant of IdioC
All posts are subject to the intense anal-retentive scrutiny of concerned citizens of the community

Particracy Realism Project
TheNewGuy
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 pm

Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron