I am in the midst of my first philosophy class, and Descarte has me in a tailspin. If anyone can help "jump start" my first paper, I would be ever so thankful!

The problem:
Descarte has ruled out the fact that god is an evil deceiver. God is infinite, he is finite, therefore He must be perfect. However, it could be argued that it was within God's will to deceive him for sake of some universal truth. Although being a deceiver connotates a negative (for a perfect being), god does work in mysterious ways, so therefore it could be a protective device, and therefore within God's will.

What I am so frantically searching for, is at least 1 occasion where it would be permissable for god (not necessarily Christian) to be a deceiver.

THANK YOU!!! (I'm aserting that perhaps age 45 is too old to begin
philosophy!!!!)
:eek: :eek:

If on a baby's first day of life you tell it of the fundamental theorum of calculus and it does not understand, have you lied to it? It need not be a lie to be beyond human comprehension, especially depending on the subject and the human eh?

magicklady:
What I am so frantically searching for, is at least 1 occasion where it would be permissable for god (not necessarily Christian) to be a deceiver.

Permissible by moral standards?
One could make a simple appeal to ignorence - the ways of the lord are mysterious. Who are we to say that God must be this or that?

Getting muddled up in God was one of Descartes' biggest errors. Actually I don't think he took God all that seriously as an explanatory concept, it was just a quick patch.

wesmorris:
Descartes' problem refers specifically to willful deception. You might have a point if it didn't, but Descartes is wondering whether god did it as a nasty practical joke.

Descartes' problem refers specifically to willful deception. You might have a point if it didn't, but Descartes is wondering whether god did it as a nasty practical joke.

I was thinking that you could argue that his point regarding "if it was god's joke or not" would be illustrated as invalid by showing the truth cannot be established regarding notions that are inherently beyond comprehension.

But yeah that's the long way around maybe.

magickalady:

Were you asked to assume that Descartes had a valid question to begin with?

I was thinking that you could argue that his point regarding "if it was god's joke or not" would be illustrated as invalid by showing the truth cannot be established regarding notions that are inherently beyond comprehension.

But yeah that's the long way around maybe.

magickalady:

Were you asked to assume that Descartes had a valid question to begin with?

No. In fact we are actually to dispute his validity. If I can ascertain that in fact it were feasible for God to lie (for a good cause) than I can invalidate this meditation (3). One problem I have with this meditation is that he proved the existence of God by reason, which was not proved unti the 5th meditation.

I truly appreciate your help!

he proved the existence of God by reason.

Perhaps to himself, yes.

I truly appreciate your help!

It's only my two cents, but I'm glad it was helpful! ;)

Any time a human attempts to "speak for god" in the sense that they could discern the motivation of such a being and effectively communicate it falls subject to the argument "that is fucking stupid" to me, in that it is similar to attempting to fit 290239234098230750320348 dimensions in your head at the same time. It simply doesn't work, as you are not equipped to envision it. The gall to speak of such things is IMO, the pinnacle of pompous presumption.

Perhaps to himself, yes.



It's only my two cents, but I'm glad it was helpful! ;)

Any time a human attempts to "speak for god" in the sense that they could discern the motivation of such a being and effectively communicate it falls subject to the argument "that is fucking stupid" to me, in that it is similar to attempting to fit 290239234098230750320348 dimensions in your head at the same time. It simply doesn't work, as you are not equipped to envision it. The gall to speak of such things is IMO, the pinnacle of pompous presumption.

Ooooh! Here's a start! I'm thinking that I may need to paraahrase somewhat, but do you mind if I incorporate that thought?

But.... I still need an example of when god could be a deceiver......

If a thought is planted in my head that I absolutely cannot do something, but manage to accomplish the feat (or vice versa), would God not have deceived me?

Ooooh! Here's a start! I'm thinking that I may need to paraahrase somewhat, but do you mind if I incorporate that thought?

Of course I don't mind.

But.... I still need an example of when god could be a deceiver......
In the case of the paranoid schizophrenic, has god not caused them to see lies? That is the same as god doing it right? We are his creation so he created paranoid schizophrenia so he is a liar, as he has commanded their perpective to be so riddled with paranoid dimensia that what might be 'reality' is wholly lost on them. I dunno. That was the best of several ideas I was considering. *shrug*

If a thought is planted in my head that I absolutely cannot do something, but manage to accomplish the feat (or vice versa), would God not have deceived me?

How did the thought get planted in your head? You mean if god planted the thought there? Why would he do that? I'm sure it's your fault right? Sinner! LOL. Okay pardon. Maybe satan planted it there? I dunno it seems to me that the paranoid schizophrenic thing is pretty good, but I'm sure there's a simple "god's plan" kind of argument to trash it. I mean, if you're presuming sadistic invisible deities, it doesn't seem like presuming that deities will is too much of a stretch. You can make shit up all day as long as you don't have to logically justify any of it. Assumptions are the difference between discussion and violence (pushing beyond an impass). Rather, if you believe in god and that I must believe in god, and I don't and don't care, your opinion creates an impass, a breach of opinion. If you still insist that I must believe in god and I won't do it, you have to make me do it, which can only be accomplished via violence. Goddamn I'm on a huge tangent nevermind. Pardon.

Of course I don't mind.


In the case of the paranoid schizophrenic, has god not caused them to see lies? That is the same as god doing it right? We are his creation so he created paranoid schizophrenia so he is a liar, as he has commanded their perpective to be so riddled with paranoid dimensia that what might be 'reality' is wholly lost on them. I dunno. That was the best of several ideas I was considering. *shrug*



How did the thought get planted in your head? You mean if god planted the thought there? Why would he do that? I'm sure it's your fault right? Sinner! LOL. Okay pardon. Maybe satan planted it there? I dunno it seems to me that the paranoid schizophrenic thing is pretty good, but I'm sure there's a simple "god's plan" kind of argument to trash it. I mean, if you're presuming sadistic invisible deities, it doesn't seem like presuming that deities will is too much of a stretch. You can make shit up all day as long as you don't have to logically justify any of it. Assumptions are the difference between discussion and violence (pushing beyond an impass). Rather, if you believe in god and that I must believe in god, and I don't and don't care, your opinion creates an impass, a breach of opinion. If you still insist that I must believe in god and I won't do it, you have to make me do it, which can only be accomplished via violence. Goddamn I'm on a huge tangent nevermind. Pardon.

Oh! No! ...No pardon necessary! Your "tangent" is producung the element that I'm supposising philosophy is all about.... I"M thinking!!!! Imagine that!! Please, please, continue! :)

My paper is done (the jury is still out). I did utilize some ideas that were shared here (with credit!), and would like to thank you all for the assistance I received! :)

Some of the example I portrayed for God to deceive included:
-running late for work only to discover that a terrible accident had occurred where you should have been
- getting a food craving, only to find the love of your life at the grocery store
- workers who chose not to go/or were late to work on 9/11

It's important to remember that most Descartes' reasoning regarding the 'evil deceiver' was based on all sorts of bizarre Greek philosophy that would sound laughable to people today. At the time of Descartes' writing, philosophers all believed pretty much everything that Plato and Aristotle ever said, no matter how bizarre or nonsensical it was. Descartes' arguments depended heavily on ancient Greek thought, so most of them aren't terribly relevant to people today. Except for historical purposes, I guess.