SKLANSKYANITY DEBUNKED

[BluffTHIS!]

David has postulated in his theistic religion Sklanskyanity, that there is a God who created the universe, there is an afterlife, and that God will reward or punish men based upon their actions in this life. However, he does not believe that such a God would "interfere" in our lives here and now, nor has He done so in the past. I have said that such non-interference would not make sense, but David has said that it would. David also has said that part of Sklanskyanity would be a God who is not or chooses not to be all-powerful. I would like to delve into this a little deeper.

Now of course David can postulate any axioms he wishes for a certain system. However, those axioms must not logically conflict, and they should not be too far-fetched. However, his axioms are indeed in logical conflict with each other and do seem to be far-fetched.

1) A God who is not or chooses not to be all-powerful

Regarding this, which religious people refer to as the divine attribute of omnipotence, this axiom can be seen to be illogical because it follows an axiom with which it is in conflict: that God created the universe. Thus, an all-powerful action par excellance, creation of the universe, is followed by God then not being all-powerful. This is an illogical conclusion, and even if it were to be insisted upon as a second axiom, such an axiom in relation to the first would be far-fetched.

2) That God having created the universe does not “interfere” again until the divine judgment that determines a person’s reward or punishment in the afterlife

This too is an illogical and far-fetched assertion because such asserted non-interference is sandwiched between the two biggest acts of interference possible, between creation and divine judgment for a person’s place in the afterlife. It also is illogical for another extremely important reason. That reason is the purpose of God in creating His creatures. Now for a God who by virtue of His creative power is necessarily self-sufficient, creating lesser creatures can only be for a malevolent purpose, or for a beneficial and kind purpose. I discount the possibility of a malevolent purpose for obvious reasons and because David has not postulated same. Therefore, God created us for a beneficial and kind purpose, and our relation to Him may precisely be seen to be the same as a Father to His children. Thus just as human parents “interfere” beneficially in the lives of their children, through powers that the children lack, so God too occasionally interferes to our ultimate benefit with powers that we lack, namely to violate the physical laws of the universe. Since our earthly life is in furtherance of an eternal afterlife and thus insignicant compared to that, God might choose to interfere for may reasons: to let us live longer so as to change and be judged worthy of that afterlife, so that we may benefit others to that end, or even just to provide some evidence for faith, as was the case with many Biblical miracles.

There is also a final reason to believe that interference is not unreasonable. Namely that what for us would seem to be interference, either obviously supernatural acts contrary to the physical laws of our known universe, or as I believe often is the case more subtle acts that break the physical laws but are not obvious to us (God wants you to avoid a traffic accident and instead of sending an angel to stand before you and block your path merely causes your fuel line to rupture but is not seen to do so), is really not that great an interference at all because we do in fact experience only a limited part of a multi-dimensional universe and thus are as two-dimensional objects in our previously discussed Flatland in relation to God who is a sphere or a tetrahedron. Thus He might not actually be violating the physical laws of the universe by His interference but only seem to do so since we lack the means to physically observe higher dimensions.


Therefore I formulate the following syllogism:

1st Premise: There is a God who created the universe, and by such creation is shown to be all-powerful.

2nd Premise: That God cares about His creatures, and particularly about those intelligent creatures that will have an afterlife and thus desires that they have the best afterlife possible and the best life here and now in furtherance of that ultimate end.

Conclusion: Because God created and cares for His creatures and wants them to have the best afterlife possible as well as a life here and now that furthers that end, He occasionally interferes in the lives of men both in ways that would be deemed by man as supernatural, and in ways that do not actually break the physical laws of the universe, but whose cause cannot scientifically be discovered to be God (BECAUSE HE LOVES US).


Nota Bene: Obviously all humans do not experience the best possible earthly life and many such live lives of great suffering, but I have asserted that such earthly life is not the ultimate end but rather in furtherance of the afterlife, so if you want to argue about “the problem of evil” or “why bad things happen to good people”, start another thread on that topic.

[PairTheBoard]

BluffTHIS --
"that God created the universe. Thus, an all-powerful action par excellance, "

As godlike acts go, creation of a universe might be a small thing.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

As godlike acts go, creation of a universe might be a small thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

An example of a bigger thing?

Your premises are flawed creating the universe doesn't prove allpowerful just powerful enough to create a universe which like was stated may be a small task. Your second premise that he cares because he created us is also flawed, he may have created us to take his anger out on for theraputic reasons or to get an A on his second grade science project. Saying that he created us in no way proves it was kind in nature or even purposeful. With your premises being flawed it is unlikely your conclusion is valid either.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
2) That God having created the universe does not “interfere” again until the divine judgment that determines a person’s reward or punishment in the afterlife

This too is an illogical and far-fetched assertion because such asserted non-interference is sandwiched between the two biggest acts of interference possible, between creation and divine judgment for a person’s place in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]
That a period of non-interference would be sandwiched between "the two biggest acts of interference possible," in no way makes it logically implausible.

[David Sklansky]

1. Firstly creating our particular universe is not evidence of all powefulness. The entity that created it could be like us building an ant farm. The fact that he created it out of "nothing" simply means he had access to another dimension (where there was already something). If all this implies that he is not God and that this entity has his own God, so be it. It is this entity that is concerning himself with us and who we are concerned with.
Secondly there is the possibility that he was all powerful but gave up what was necessary to give us true free will. I would think such a possibility would please those who like to believe that he let his only son suffer for us. Giving up his omnipotence (which seems logical that omnipotent entity could do) for us is at least as big a deal.

2. Sklanskyanity does not insist that God won't become involved in our day to day lives. For instance the punishment or rewards could conceivably be in the here and now. The point that BluffTHIS is arguing about relates to whether it makes sense that a concerned father would ignore his children. I already wrote why it does but maybe he missed it. I pointed out that you can't use the human father analogy because God is all powerful (save for the seeing the future which he gave up) while fathers are not.So while a father will do everything he can for you God can't because that would mean doing everything. That being the case it is reasonable to believe that God chose to stay out of things completely rather than to sometimes get involved and sometimes not. As to he idea that God would go to great lenghts to prevent your car accident but allow tsunamis, is at least as implausuible as the idea that he will remain above the fray completely. In any case the whole subject of whether or not he gets involved is only my opinion, based on evidence, not a tenet of Sklanskyanity.

[ QUOTE ]


2. Sklanskyanity does not insist that God won't become involved in our day to day lives. For instance the punishment or rewards could conceivably be in the here and now. The point that BluffTHIS is arguing about relates to whether it makes sense that a concerned father would ignore his children. I already wrote why it does but maybe he missed it. I pointed out that you can't use the human father analogy because God is all powerful (save for the seeing the future which he gave up) while fathers are not.So while a father will do everything he can for you God can't because that would mean doing everything. That being the case it is reasonable to believe that God chose to stay out of things completely rather than to sometimes get involved and sometimes not. As to he idea that God would go to great lenghts to prevent your car accident but allow tsunamis, is at least as implausuible as the idea that he will remain above the fray completely. In any case the whole subject of whether or not he gets involved is only my opinion, based on evidence, not a tenet of Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont have the best understanding of qauntam mech or Sklanskyanity, but if God, as Sklanskyanity allows for, does become involved would the "spookiness" of QM disappear?....would the Schrodinger wave equation collapse at the subatomic level?

i dont know if that ques even makes any sense but iver been reading about that crap all night and i was just wondering if i have any type of understanding of it.

[David Sklansky]

According to Sklanskyanity, God can't make Quantum spookiness disappear. He gave forever up the power to do that. If he didn't he would be able to use his vast calculation abilities tos see the future (and eliminate our free will) even if he couldn't just snap his fingers and do it. Thanks for the question.

[Girchuck]

An entity that is capable of creating the Universe is not necessarily all-powerful.

[bohemian]

I have never seen anything more useless than debates on this forum. What a stupid waste of time.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Firstly creating our particular universe is not evidence of all powefulness. The entity that created it could be like us building an ant farm. The fact that he created it out of "nothing" simply means he had access to another dimension (where there was already something). If all this implies that he is not God and that this entity has his own God, so be it. It is this entity that is concerning himself with us and who we are concerned with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making the argument that there are orders of omnipotence, somewhat like transfinite numbers in mathematics. But the only thing that is important, is that being's power in relation to us. That is an omnipotent relation.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly there is the possibility that he was all powerful but gave up what was necessary to give us true free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such an occurence does not make sense because such omnipotence on God's part does not limit our free will except in particular ways and cases that he might choose to limit it. Furthermore, such omnipotence is an attribute that is part of an integral whole, and thus cannot be limited except in individual instances because it is part of God's intrinsic nature.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Sklanskyanity does not insist that God won't become involved in our day to day lives. For instance the punishment or rewards could conceivably be in the here and now. The point that BluffTHIS is arguing about relates to whether it makes sense that a concerned father would ignore his children. I already wrote why it does but maybe he missed it. I pointed out that you can't use the human father analogy because God is all powerful (save for the seeing the future which he gave up) while fathers are not.So while a father will do everything he can for you God can't because that would mean doing everything. That being the case it is reasonable to believe that God chose to stay out of things completely rather than to sometimes get involved and sometimes not.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary, the Father analogy is the perfect analogy because our human fathers don't actually do everything for us because to do so would stunt our emotional, social and intellectual development. Rather, God, like our human fathers, acts at appropriate times as a catalyst. For this reason, it is in fact unreasonable to believe that God would not occasionally become involved in our earthly lives.

[ QUOTE ]
As to he idea that God would go to great lenghts to prevent your car accident but allow tsunamis, is at least as implausuible as the idea that he will remain above the fray completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more reasonable to believe that a God being all-wise and all-knowing as well as omnipotent, is actually as likely to prefer to make occasional smaller violations of physical laws to benefit particular persons rather than large scale ones, since his primary motivation is to help us here and now to further our ultimate end: a good afterlife, which depends upon each individual person. Furthermore, it is obvious that as a result of God's intervention it is possible that many tsunamis were prevented or skewed out of the way of people, although such can never be known or proved.

David, I think that your insistence on a non-interfering God is the type of argumentation that proceeds from a desired conclusion and then attempts to postulate all that is necessary to insure that conclusion. In this way you are much like BossJJ.

[MaxPowerPoker]

In Sklanskyanity, when does Jesus come to die for our sins and be be risen from the dead?

[BluffTHIS!]

In Sklanskyanity, there is no redemption for sin, just reward and punishment after death.

[David Sklansky]

Sklanskyanity postulates a God who has no need whatsoever to be recognized. He wants only that consciousbeingkind, that he basically created, make the most of their lives. He gives them free will. I'm pretty sure to do that it is logically necessary that he give up omnipotence but that is an irrelevant side issue. There is no stipulation that the God of Sklanskyanity will not get involved with day to day lives. There is only the stipulation that it is not necessary that he does.

The key point is that the God of Sklanskyanity realizes that Adam Smith is wrong because of Prisoner Dillema situations that come up. That's a fairly complicated technical idea but the jist of it is that people in general will not reach their peak if everyone tries to maximize their own happiness at all times. That is correct even if people are always fully aware of the concept of postponing gratification and cooperating with their immediate friends and associates for long term gain. The problem is that if you unilaterally break away from personal maximizing of happiness you only hurt yourself unless most others do it too. Like I said, it's kind of technical.

Anyway the simplest way to get people to behave the way the prisoner's dillema sometimes advocates (which basically means following the Golden Rule) is to enforce those behaviors with reward and punishment. Perhaps after death. Some people do not need this incentive to follow the Golden Rule. Sklanskyanity says that they will be rewarded regardless of their religion or lack thereof. The God of Sklanskyanity wants to be known only because there are many people who won't follow the Golden Rule if they believed he didn't exist. That's the ONLY reason he wants people to believe in him.

As far as forgiveness he has plenty. No single act good or bad dooms you to reward or punishment. He weighs everything. The rapist who gets out and works among the lepers in Africa gets a better afterlife than the schlub who never does anything good or bad. If Mother Thesa became a bank robber, she would also go to heaven, or whatever, but she would miss out on the deluxe suite.

Similarly bad guys could ameliorate their sentence by doing some good. There is ALWAYS incentive to change for the better but there is no wiping the slate clean. There is also always greater punishment for continuing bad deeds. To the God of Sklanskyanity, life is a poker game not a football game.

In some cases Sklanskyanity's God will give someone a break when their scale tips a bit to the negative side. That would happen when it is clear that death came to soon for someone, who has obviously changed their ways, to pile up enough positives.

All pretty much common sense. Unlike other religion's gods, the god of Sklanskyanity never indulges in fuzzy thinking.

[BluffTHIS!]

So the updated Sklanskyanity now posits:

1) There is a God.
2) That he wants no recognition per se but only wants to be known so that his creatures will follow the Golden Rule
3) That he wants his intelligent creatures to be kind and make the most of their lives
4) That he will reward or punish their behaviour in relation to the Golden Rule in determining their state in the afterlife
5) That it is logically necessary he give up omnipotence in order that his creatures have free will
6) That it is possible that he interferes in the lives of his creatures but that there is no necessity that he do so
7) That the Prisoner's Dilemma is an apt way for looking at how those creatures should act
8) That he forgives his creatures and judges their eternal fate in the afterlife on the totality of their individual lives
9) That god does not engage in fuzzy thinking

OK. Well regarding numbers 1 and 3, those are compatible with Catholicism so I have no problem there. Regarding #2, again I say that it is logical and reasonable that God perceives himself and should be perceived by his creatures as a Father. And as a father, he is entitled to be respected and loved for that reason and also because of his loving kindness toward his creatures. Thus respect to God is a matter of justice.

Regarding #4, again I have no problem as that is compatible with the minimal requirements of the natural law that sincere non-believers will be judged by.

Regarding #5, it is in no way logically necessary that God give up omnipotence for his creatures to possess free will, since their free will can only be exercised to the limits of their natural abilities, and not in supernatural ways limited only to God. The key point though, is that God’s allowing free will in no way limits his own freedom of action.

Regarding #6, since you now state that God could but would not have to, intervene in the lives of his creatures, I again have no problem, as long as you do not limit it further by saying that He cannot in His wisdom decide to do precisely that on certain occasions, either toward individuals, or in events manifested to many.

Regarding #7, I really do not see how the Prisoner’s Dilemma is an apt way to look at how men should follow the Golden Rule. You have posited that each individual will be judged on his own actions, and thus this really is not a 2 or even n-person cooperative game. Surely individuals should on occasion cooperate for the greater good, but an individual cannot himself have his afterlife harmed by the actions of another who does not follow the Golden Rule. Thus there would seem to be no reason that the axioms above constitute some type of game, and min-max considerations would not apply since a bad individual not following the Golden Rule can only maximize himself at others’ expense in this earthly life, but not to the detriment of their eternal fate.

Regarding number 8 I agree for the most part, but as a Catholic would say that repentance and good deeds made efficacious by the sacrifice of Christ would bring forgiveness, provided that a person was good at the end of his life. Thus prior good deeds followed by serious enough bad ones which were not repented/atoned for would not mitigate those later bad deeds.

Regarding #9, I agree provided that you do not somehow construe non-fuzzy thinking to mean that God would not act in certain ways which might not seem logical to you, but would in his all-knowing wisdom make sense in the greater scheme of things. Naturally I believe all doctrines regarding God and his creation should be logically coherent with each other.

[David Sklansky]

Two out of three of your disagreements are of a technical nature. One of those two stems from a misunderstanding what I'm saying when I invoke the prisoner's dilemma. It's not worth getting int now. The other regarding free will is technical, and I'm sure I'm right, but it is irrelevant. The third one regarding God's wish to be worshipped is a matter of opinion and mine is the more plausible one. The only reason you accept the less plausible scenario is because that is the scenario in the bible. If there was no bible but every week the last seven commandments rained down from the sky you would be a practicng Sklanskian.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The other regarding free will is technical, and I'm sure I'm right, but it is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you say this point is irrelevant, although you have now gone from pretty sure to sure, but I think it is very important not for its own sake but from a logical point of view. You seem to be saying that for an omnipotent god to allow his creatures to have free will within their natural capabilities, that god must limit his omnipotence. There is implied in this the premise that those creatures could not exercise their free will in their lives just because god himself is all-powerful. God permissively allowing a creature to do certain things in no way limits his own omnipotence. If you still disagree, even though you think it irrelevant, I would be interested in knowing your reasoning.

And regarding the Prisoner's Dilemma, I realize you aren't really saying that a game exists but using it as an analogy for why people should follow the Golden Rule. However it still doesn't seem to apply since for it to do so would mean that one person's reward/punishment in the afterlife depended upon the actions of another, which is not posited.

And regading the bible, if I didn't believe in it/christianity, I woulnd't be a type of deist as a believer in sklanskyanity is, but rather as I have said, would most likely be a philosophical buddhist or taoist.

[David Sklansky]

"I know you say this point is irrelevant, although you have now gone from pretty sure to sure, but I think it is very important not for its own sake but from a logical point of view. You seem to be saying that for an omnipotent god to allow his creatures to have free will within their natural capabilities, that god must limit his omnipotence. There is implied in this the premise that those creatures could not exercise their free will in their lives just because god himself is all-powerful. God permissively allowing a creature to do certain things in no way limits his own omnipotence. If you still disagree, even though you think it irrelevant, I would be interested in knowing your reasoning"

It seems to me that if anything knows the future for certain, there is no free will. I only say God gives up this power because of that point and because reward and punishment is nonsense if we don't have free will. If there is a logical flaw in my first sentence it doesn't change anything else about Sklanskyanity.

"However it still doesn't seem to apply since for it to do so would mean that one person's reward/punishment in the afterlife depended upon the actions of another, which is not posited."

It doesn't depend on the actions of another. I don't think you understand. You are punished if you "snitch". (I assume everybody realizes that I am talking about the prisoner's dilemma variations, not actually involving prisoners, where the world is better off if nobody snitches.)

"And regading the bible, if I didn't believe in it/christianity, I woulnd't be a type of deist as a believer in sklanskyanity is,"

Why are you saying such innaccurate things? Sklanskyanity isn't deism because deism assumes God was done with us once he created the universe.

[BluffTHIS!]

Regarding free will, how does God's fore-knowledge limit same in any way? Just because He knows how you are going to excercise your free will doesn't limit it unless he acts to prevent some excercise of that free will in advance, in which case it would be more correct to say we have a limited free will. However that is no different from men's interactions with each other.

Regarding the prisoner's dilemma, I understand it well, but still don't see from sklanskyanity's axioms how any cooperation is necessary for determining an individual person's reward/punishment in the afterlife.

And regarding the "deist" comment, I was just teasing you since I have always previously referred to sklanskyanity as "theist".

[JoshuaD]

David: I think most of the boards would appreciate it if you started using the quote feature. It's really simple to use, and it looks like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, and it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an example:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
God Does Exist!
</pre><hr />


Just type that in your post, and you'll get those pretty quote boxes:

[ QUOTE ]
God Does Exist!

[/ QUOTE ]

See? It's nice.

Sorry to derail the thread, but the lack of quotes always makes your long threads harder to read.