So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics.
Lol, I think Philosophy 101 must be the same across the entire country.
-J
Well, an open forum for discussion is sort of what philosophy is, at least it's what all philosophers engage in.
Yeah I know, it just seems so flaky and "typical" of the field (philosophy + higher education), almost like a parody of itself at this point.
With regard to the discussion at hand, I'm not sure why we're making so many assumptions about God, such as his criteria for damnation/salvation and what they entail, his motivations for creating humans, his level of responsibility for whatever, his degree of power/omniscience, etc. And if given the latter, like Ehra pointed out, I'm not sure why we're assuming that we should be capable of understanding the endgame--or any aspect of the mind--of an omniscient being with infinite wisdom and understanding.
It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God: any reasonable person knows it could go either way. It's just childish to define a specific "version" of God and then angrily and vehemently reject it based on what you (not directed at anyone particularly), a feeble ignorant human, think is unjust, stupid, or pointless. Or what you think he should or shouldn't have the "right" to do. Just as childish as a religious fundamentalist zealot spewing nonsense rhetoric.
And if you take away those assumptions about God's "laws" and his punishment and supposed idea of justice, it's hard to make a case against what Ehra's been saying. Perceived "arbitrariness" of something doesn't necessarily mean it is so, and doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing to be gained from it.
-J