Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

I'm saying that God himself is logic and reason. He is Truth and reality, the basis of all creation.
Christian history is something different to this, but if you are living in the Truth of love towards your fellow man, then you are hooked up to the juice bro

 

[KFunk]

I dont claim to know God's mind on this, I only claim that living a life devoted to loving your neighbour and honouring the universal moral code attached to this (dont steal, kill, covet, fornicate etc) is essentially the path all good people can agree on.

Despite my position of moral nihilism, allow me to play devil's advocate:

Mightn't it be possible to affirm the moral life in the absence of god? In particular, consider Plato's Euthyphro dilemma which is posed in the question "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The argument then runs that if 'the good' is defined by the (free) will of god then it becomes arbitrary, which runs counter to any moral theory which demands the existence of grounded, objective, moral truths. There must then be some further fact which fixes the will of a benevolent god such that they favour 'the good'. Such a fact may take the form of pie-in-the-sky moral truths (Utilitarian, Kantian, take your pick), logical facts - e.g. regarding the interaction of rational agents or the character of god - or similar.

 

[KFunk]

Let's just ban anybody who isn't:

me
Kwayera
Iron
moll.
Graney
jb nc
Rafy
zimmermanguy
Schroe
NTB
Shakespeare
Exphate
Kfunk.

Agreed?

You need a solid collection of intelligent, sensible theists to make the thread worthwhile. Otherwise it descends into idiocy and/or flame wars.

 

[Kwayera]

You need a solid collection of intelligent, sensible theists to make the thread worthwhile. Otherwise it descends into idiocy and/or flame wars.

Sadly, that is more often than not an oxymoron.

Iron excused

 

[Cookie182]

It's hardly a double-standard, or arrogance. We claim all the rules of logic, reason and science, we accept that our understanding of reality has progressed more fully over time. The point is that God is the apex of all reason and Truth - he is the end point, the reason why we have any reasons to begin with. Our creation is One and it is good! What is the point of all reason if it cannot lead to the God question? What is the basis of any truth at all, if there is no over-arching truth to bind them?

lol see we can not go further in discussion at this point Iron- your brain actually won't allow it. You’re set in your ideology. The only way I could change your thoughts would be through use of Neuro-lingusitic Processing or deep level hypnosis.

In bold, you’re ignoring the whole premise of atheism. This entity 'God'- it holds no realistic concept beyond proposition! It's a lovely thought to think we have two dads- but the only one I'm certain of is the man who owns this computer I'm writing on. You can't make the irrational leap and assume that 'God' exists- it just simply comes back to that light-hearted label called faith. Faith is irrational. It is an excuse that has been passed down for centuries for crimes against reason! Eventually, people accept it as being different to reason. You say that God created my reasoning abilities; however you know that you can not do anymore to show this then say it. I do give you props though for at least engaging in this discussion- a less intelligent theist would have brought up the Bible says so. I think we can both lol at that.

The last question I raise- would you follow Catholicism if the "fruits" of eternal, heavily pleasures were not promised? If the answer is yes, that that shows you don't need God at all- you just appreciate the moral code the religion has given you as you best interpret that as the 'best' way to live your life- essentially, to maximise your happiness. However, if the answer is 'no' (which many theist's will say) that implies the code's you follow are not completely congruent with you WANT in life, and your selfishly following them purely for the reason of an eternal promise. If such is the case- I truly have pity for those people. Sacrificing what they want in LIFE, on the hopes of getting what they want in DEATH. So rational…

 

[Cookie182]

I feel that you are ignoring my posts.

I fundamentally feel your ignoring mine and most importatnly the very valid, logical points I have raised. As essentially, you have no answers left to give.

 

[Iron]

Despite my position of moral nihilism, allow me to play devil's advocate:

Mightn't it be possible to affirm the moral life in the absence of god? In particular, consider Plato's Euthyphro dilemma which is posed in the question "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The argument then runs that if 'the good' is defined by the (free) will of god then it becomes arbitrary, which runs counter to any moral theory which demands the existence of grounded, objective, moral truths. There must then be some further fact which fixes the will of a benevolent god such that they favour 'the good'. Such a fact may take the form of pie-in-the-sky moral truths (Utilitarian, Kantian, take your pick), logical facts - e.g. regarding the interaction of rational agents or the character of god - or similar.

Well the transcendents encompass all that is the good, the beautiful and the true. We believe that God is found in all these things - not just, say, the truth of logical facts alone. The question of which came first is, if I may say so, a wankery question. We know that love for God and eachother is the greatest thing that we are capable of as a species and it finds expression through all these divine instruments

 

[Cookie182]

Despite my position of moral nihilism, allow me to play devil's advocate:

Mightn't it be possible to affirm the moral life in the absence of god? In particular, consider Plato's Euthyphro dilemma which is posed in the question "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The argument then runs that if 'the good' is defined by the (free) will of god then it becomes arbitrary, which runs counter to any moral theory which demands the existence of grounded, objective, moral truths. There must then be some further fact which fixes the will of a benevolent god such that they favour 'the good'. Such a fact may take the form of pie-in-the-sky moral truths (Utilitarian, Kantian, take your pick), logical facts - e.g. regarding the interaction of rational agents or the character of god - or similar.

I'd see it that religious people are essentially operating through classic utilitarianism- they see their moral codes as maximising some yardstick (happiness/preference/social justice eg- take your pick). Is it inherently selfish? Well, most seem to promote that their ethical position comes from their vision of total societal happiness being reached which is the classic idea of utilitarianism. However, there is no question that many of them are Ethical Egoists

 

[Cookie182]

Another question of interest to the theist- if we are all "God's" creatures, should other animals be given the chance for salvation? Where does their soul go when they die? My religious friend said only 'persons' can accept Christ and go to Heaven, but what about my very intelligent dog or a Chimpanzee? His proposition stumped me at first. Then I told him to go read Peter Singer lol




oh btw Kfunk

wat is ur take on Descartes classic "Cogito ergo sum"?

 

[KFunk]

We believe that God is found in all these things - not just, say, the truth of logical facts alone. The question of which came first is, if I may say so, a wankery question.

In this case I would call it a serious question. You may call it ill-formed, but if you take religion and/or the moral life seriously then it can't merely be dismissed as wankery. It is important to determine whether Truth, Good, and company, are metaphysically prior to god because it determines the possibility of a secular philosophy or science of these concepts.

 

[Iron]

lol see we can not go further in discussion at this point Iron- your brain actually won't allow it. You’re set in your ideology. The only way I could change your thoughts would be through use of Neuro-lingusitic Processing or deep level hypnosis.

In bold, you’re ignoring the whole premise of atheism. This entity 'God'- it holds no realistic concept beyond proposition! It's a lovely thought to think we have two dads- but the only one I'm certain of is the man who owns this computer I'm writing on. You can't make the irrational leap and assume that 'God' exists- it just simply comes back to that light-hearted label called faith. Faith is irrational. It is an excuse that has been passed down for centuries for crimes against reason! Eventually, people accept it as being different to reason. You say that God created my reasoning abilities; however you know that you can not do anymore to show this then say it. I do give you props though for at least engaging in this discussion- a less intelligent theist would have brought up the Bible says so. I think we can both lol at that.

The last question I raise- would you follow Catholicism if the "fruits" of eternal, heavily pleasures were not promised? If the answer is yes, that that shows you don't need God at all- you just appreciate the moral code the religion has given you as you best interpret that as the 'best' way to live your life- essentially, to maximise your happiness. However, if the answer is 'no' (which many theist's will say) that implies the code's you follow are not completely congruent with you WANT in life, and your selfishly following them purely for the reason of an eternal promise. If such is the case- I truly have pity for those people. Sacrificing what they want in LIFE, on the hopes of getting what they want in DEATH. So rational…

No, I agree that faith is irrational. There is a point where you have to say that there is nothing solid to base your belief on, but you make the leap anyway. This is the test that all men, including Indiana Jones, must take. The test is invalid if you take it in bad faith and for an improper purpose - ie self-interest. The leap is only worth taking if you truely believe - rather than selfishly hope - that there will be something on the other side for you to grab on to.

Life is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful! It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we excercise our freedom; it is in this - in truth, in goodness, and in beauty - that we find happiness and joy. Christ offers more than an anonomous consumer market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth. Only He who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life!
It makes so much sense to me

 

[Iron]

Another question of interest to the theist- if we are all "God's" creatures, should other animals be given the chance for salvation? Where does their soul go when they die? My religious friend said only 'persons' can accept Christ and go to Heaven, but what about my very intelligent dog or a Chimpanzee? His proposition stumped me at first. Then I told him to go read Peter Singer lol




oh btw Kfunk

wat is ur take on Descartes classic "Cogito ergo sum"?

Only man was made in God's image. We should sustain God's creation, but it exists for us brau

 

[Cookie182]

No, I agree that faith is irrational. There is a point where you have to say that there is nothing solid to base your belief on, but you make the leap anyway. This is the test that all men, including Indiana Jones, must take. The test is invalid if you take it in bad faith and for an improper purpose - ie self-interest. The leap is only worth taking if you truely believe - rather than selfishly hope - that there will be something on the other side for you to grab on to.

Life is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful! It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we excercise our freedom; it is in this - in truth, in goodness, and in beauty - that we find happiness and joy. Christ offers more than an anonomous consumer market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth. Only He who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life!
It makes so much sense to me

See, I find such beauty in this discussion- that even two anonymous, intelligent human beings such as ourselves can come to a most elegant agreement- that the discussion for us ends there. I argued it was irrational- you agreed, there is nothing more to say on that matter. Beyond arguing in the realms of reason, I can offer you nothing, but can take nothing away. I guess you could say- we were both on the same train, I got off at Central and you took another train (into what I would perceive) as the unknown. To me- that's a beautiful and benign journey on its own- but it does become dangerous when that mystery train crashes into someone else. That's when a grave pain emerges- usually because someone is on another train, just as much a mystery as yours, however it's traveling in the opposite direction and BOOM- there's a conflict. But my biggest concern is when your train affects society in such a subtler way- when the train's moral guidelines meet the laws that govern the tracks- and a person who doesn't agree, but is relatively powerless, is trying to cross.

Enjoy Friday night!

 

[KFunk]

wat is ur take on Descartes classic "Cogito ergo sum"?

Prima facie it seems straight forward and true, but things become difficult when you try to pin down the nature of the 'I' which is said to exist. It is not obvious that we must head towards the dualistic res cogitans (thinking substance) versus res extensa (extended substance) dichotomy. There are objections throughout the history of modern philosophy, e.g. Hume, Sartre, other phenomenologists, Rorty, Dennett, philosophers of mind drawing on modern neuroscience, many, many others not mentioned.

I am as yet undecided.

 

[Iron]

That's a nice way of putting it Cookie dood

 

[forks]

love this discussion!!

But here's a small question directed at atheists:doesn't it take faith to be an atheist? It seems that faith is derided by most atheists, but it takes faith to believe that all that is real can be fully perceived and known by humans. Unless you acknowledge that there could be some higher spiritual reality, I don't see how it can't be faith to be assured in oneself without proof.
I'm not trying to insult atheists, I just wanna see what their take on this would be.

 

[rant]

he takes the pass!!!

love this discussion!!

But here's a small question directed at atheists:doesn't it take faith to be an atheist? It seems that faith is derided by most atheists, but it takes faith to believe that all that is real can be fully perceived and known by humans. Unless you acknowledge that there could be some higher spiritual reality, I don't see how it can't be faith to be assured in oneself without proof.
I'm not trying to insult atheists, I just wanna see what their take on this would be.

It has to do with Occam's Razor, mostly. The truth is that nothing can be known for sure, but that 'not everything' has the same probability. In general, you want to explain a phenomenon in the simplest way possible, because there are very strong arguments, both mathematical and intuitive, that simpler theories are more probable. For example, if I ask you to complete this sequence:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ?

You would probably answer 6, but in fact if you sould also argue that y = (x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5)+x, it works out to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 too, but then it jumps to 120, not 6. But you still answer 6 because y=x is a much simpler theory.

The same goes for science and whether the supernatural exists or not. If there exist things that we cannot perceive or know in any way, regardless of what they are, we don't see a difference, and it is simpler, hence more probable, to assume that there is nothing.

God is a very complex entity, therefore a very complex explanation, if you compare it with the current state of the art in science. It does not really explain anything that cannot be explained much more precisely by simpler means. To add insult to injury, if something "supernatural" existed, there is absolutely no logical requirement for it to be sentient or anything resembling a God, which means that God does not only have to compete with naturalistic explanations, it has to compete with a near-infinity of oddball non-naturalistic theories.

In a nutshell, "faith" is belief in something that is improbable, either because it does not really explain anything, or because what it explains is explained better by something simpler. Belief in something probable is not faith. That is why believing in Santa Claus is faith, but believing Santa Claus does not exist isn't. And that is why believing in God is faith, whereas atheism requires no faith (unless you say that God does not exist with 100% certainty, but then you're just wrong).

Therefore, the burden of proof is on the believer. It just always is. Positive claims require evidence because the sheer number of possibilities makes it so that they are systemically less probable than the negative claims.

 

[Kwayera]

love this discussion!!

But here's a small question directed at atheists:doesn't it take faith to be an atheist? It seems that faith is derided by most atheists, but it takes faith to believe that all that is real can be fully perceived and known by humans. Unless you acknowledge that there could be some higher spiritual reality, I don't see how it can't be faith to be assured in oneself without proof.
I'm not trying to insult atheists, I just wanna see what their take on this would be.

I think that that's the wrong question to ask. Atheism doesn't specifically deride faith (except when that's the only thing that's influencing a belief); for example, I have "faith" (or "believe"; the two terms are somewhat interchangeable) that a particular chair won't fall down when I sit on it, but that's evidence-based: I have prior experience of sitting on that chair and it not falling own.

Religious faith is not evidence-based, and atheistic "faith" in non-belief in God is more of an expression of a lack of evidence to prove a belief. Most atheists do acknowledge that a "higher power" is possible, but we have no evidence of it and it's extremely unlikely.

EDIT: Rant, above, said it better than I did

 

[rant]

this is why they call me rant

Originally Posted by forks
snip

Oh, and it also depends on the type of proposition.

The prior that "something is green" is higher than the prior that "nothing is green", because given a limited number of colours and the large number of objects that exist, the number of possibilities where something is green is greater than the number of possibilities where nothing is green.

There are many indirect factors to take into account too: if you tell me you ate an antelope yesterday, the rational belief is to believe you because of strong evidence that people don't usually lie about these things. However, if you tell me absolutely nothing about yourself and I have to express a belief, it would be faith to believe you ate antelope, but not faith to believe you did not. Of course, I have to be aware that there is a chance that you did eat antelope and my belief is wrong, but it is still not faith, just a reasonable estimate, just like it is not faith to believe God does not exist when there is no evidence that he does.

And even if there was some minor evidence, such as Jesus existing, it seems overwhelmingly more probable to me that Jesus was not divine, did not do anything supernatural and "sinned" a couple times, like everybody else. To take evidence for Jesus and infer the truth of the whole Bible from this is a recipe for disaster - for example, there is zero evidence that God really is all-loving and does not just pretend because he's a narcissist, much to the contrary in fact.

I believe the Big Bang occurred because it explains a great amount of observations for which God does not provide the slightest hint. Whatever I do not know, I do not know and I trust science to eventually find out answers. I would not say that it is faith, because science is known to deliver. And if it doesn't deliver, I don't see how religion could possibly fare better.

phew

 

[KFunk]

Re: he takes the pass!!!

For example, if I ask you to complete this sequence:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ?

You would probably answer 6, but in fact if you sould also argue that y = (x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5)+x, it works out to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 too, but then it jumps to 120, not 6. But you still answer 6 because y=x is a much simpler theory.

For your interest: this is very similar to the rule-following paradox from Kripke's work on Wittgenstein in which he takes similar considerations in a skeptical direction using the example of addition ('plus' versus the theoretical function 'quus').