Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[BradCube]

Hmm. You value gods definition of value. Why?

Why should I not value Gods definition of value?

My thoughts toward the issue would be that since God is the source of everything, then his is the definition of everything. morality, meaning/value etc.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Why should I not value Gods definition of value?

My thoughts toward the issue would be that since God is the source of everything, then his is the definition of everything. morality, meaning/value etc.

I think you've missed his point... You say you value X because god says it is valuable. How did you come to the decision to value what god says? You made a value decision without the need of god.

I wouldn't make the argument, but that was his point I think.

 

[Kwayera]

Just as a question: it seems for the most part, BradCube, that you need for your value systems a god in general, not necessarily Jehovah of the Bible.

So which is it? A generic "god" or God?

 

[KFunk]

To be honest I don't think people feel this 'sense of meaning' in their life as they meander along their business, I think the only time such a thing exists is upon moments of self reflection... In such moments it feels genuine because it is

You're on some Heidegger pills, yo. The above is quite similar to Heidegger's distinction between authentic and inauthentic modes of being. He holds that most people, most of the time, are in the latter mode, i.e. when they "meander along their business." However, these periods are also punctuated by reflective moments where we come face to face with our being and thus become characterised by 'authenticity' (I suppose he may mean authentic in as much as such moments involve a lived awareness of our true/basic nature).

 

[BradCube]

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).
Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

These sort of arguments I must admit frustrate me to no end. "Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist" is such a cop out in finding reasons for Gods existence. It could just as easily be argued that in the knowledge we don't have of God, there may be evidence to show us that God does not exist. Either way I am tempted to think, that if there is a God, he should provide us with enough information to make an informed decision about him with the knowledge we are able to gather.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

You're on some Heidegger pills, yo. The above is quite similar to Heidegger's distinction between authentic and inauthentic modes of being. He holds that most people, most of the time, are in the latter mode, i.e. when they "meander along their business." However, these periods are also punctuated by reflective moments where we come face to face with our being and thus become characterised by 'authenticity' (I suppose he may mean authentic in as much as such moments involve a lived awareness of our true/basic nature).

Sounds along the lines of what I think, what a jib.... I can see semantical problems with the authentic/inauthentic thing as in I probably would have explained it using opposite terms but it sounds like it generally means the same thing (I would view the authentic state of being to be the almost robotic, primal one... but I can see how someone might not see that as much a part of the 'persona').

 

[Kwayera]

These sort of arguments I must admit frustrate me to no end. "Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist" is such a cop out in finding reasons for Gods existence. It could just as easily be argued that in the knowledge we don't have of God, there may be evidence to show us that God does not exist. Either way I am tempted to think, that if there is a God, he should provide us with enough information to make an informed decision about him with the knowledge we are able to gather.

Why? Why should he? If the universe was indeed created by a "God", why would, in all the universe, feel the need to inform US of his existence? That's a bit (a lot) arrogant, and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense - why, honestly, would he (it) CARE if we knew or not? It wouldn't make any difference.


Oh. Right. "Personal god", right?

 

[BradCube]

But then by your criterion of meaning - which posits a need for some external validating source - god's own existence is meaningless. If you can bypass this problem in the case of god and allow god to self-create meaning then why can't you do as much in the case of sentient beings like man?

We can make an exception in the case of God because he is not a created being - and therefore there is no external validator source beyond himself (since he needs not be validated at all). This is as opposed to a created human who certainly does have a validator beyond himself.

 

[Kwayera]

We can make an exception in the case of God because he is not a created being - and therefore there is no external validator source beyond himself (since he needs not be validated at all). This is as opposed to a created human who certainly does have a validator beyond himself.

But that ASSUMES creation - and you know that thing about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me.


(excuse my glib-ness, I'm... studying. Lol)

 

[BradCube]

Why? Why should he? If the universe was indeed created by a "God", why would, in all the universe, feel the need to inform US of his existence? That's a bit (a lot) arrogant, and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense - why, honestly, would he (it) CARE if we knew or not? It wouldn't make any difference.


Oh. Right. "Personal god", right?

You're entirely correct here. I was talking from the perspective of a rebuttal against what I presume was a Christian extract and hence personal God. It is entirely possible that a God could exist that creates us without giving a damn about whether we knew of it or not.

 

[BradCube]

But that ASSUMES creation - and you know that thing about assumptions, they make an ass out of you and me.


(excuse my glib-ness, I'm... studying. Lol)

Ahh well yes of course... but my argument the whole time has been that God is needed for true meaning to be real. If God did not create the universe, then there is no meaning. I fail to see your point since were not arguing about Gods existence at the moment.

 

[Ennaybur]

You're on some Heidegger pills, yo. The above is quite similar to Heidegger's distinction between authentic and inauthentic modes of being. He holds that most people, most of the time, are in the latter mode, i.e. when they "meander along their business." However, these periods are also punctuated by reflective moments where we come face to face with our being and thus become characterised by 'authenticity' (I suppose he may mean authentic in as much as such moments involve a lived awareness of our true/basic nature).

I want to sex kfunk's brain something chronic

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Agreed in a non-gay way, pretty much the only boser left that I want to meet.

 

[Stevo.]

KFunk is really hot in a intellectual way.

 

[Kwayera]

You're entirely correct here. I was talking from the perspective of a rebuttal against what I presume was a Christian extract and hence personal God. It is entirely possible that a God could exist that creates us without giving a damn about whether we knew of it or not.

In which case, would your need for "validation" still stand, given that that creator would have as much care for us as a rock does, and wouldn't necessarily have any intrinsic "goodness"? How would you reconcile your need for validated meaning in that case (which is much more likely than a personal god)?

Ahh well yes of course... but my argument the whole time has been that God is needed for true meaning to be real. If God did not create the universe, then there is no meaning. I fail to see your point since were not arguing about Gods existence at the moment.

But unless I haven't been reading very carefully, you haven't really given any reason as to WHY a God is needed for "true meaning to be real" (and how would you define "true meaning"?), other than the "just because" platitudes. Hence my comments above, in the case of an uncaring God who by definition would not have concept nor care of "goodness", because, again, it wouldn't care either way.

 

[Ennaybur]

Fuck off bitches, I call shotgun!

 

[BradCube]

I don't understand what you mean. Why does creativity disappear in the absence of god?

Maybe it is me that is misunderstanding you. If God does not exist, and meaning is only based on personal self validation then the theist needn't worry about alternative ways to self validate oneself since they are all as good as each other. Not to mention that the theist is out of a job!

I think it's a mistake to make it an issue of 'real' versus 'pseudo-' meaning. Instead I think its the difference between meaning derived from an external source and meaning derived from within, where I take meaning to be related to purpose, direction and living in a manner that might be deemed 'worthwhile'.

I don't follow here, you seem to be claiming that it's not an issue that you have pseudo meaning because it is based on your purpose, direction and living in a manner that might be deemed "worthwhile". Seems to be a bit circular to me.

I take issue with theists who can't accept the idea that a being's existence could precede its essence because god is already postulated to do just this. Thus this idea is not, in and of itself, incoherent within a theistic context.

But God existence does not preceded his essence, since God is timeless and non-created. There is not a point at which God comes into existence - and likewise there is no point at which his essence/nature follows after this.

I don't think that it is without sense to suppose that such a description could apply to humans. I am not advocating that real meaning is replaced with pseudo-meaning, but rather that you try to appreciate the possibility of self-created meaning.

I am sure that self-created meaning is a possibility, I just can't see it as any reasonable substitution for real meaning

 

[Kwayera]

I am sure that self-created meaning is a possibility, I just can't see it as any reasonable substitution for real meaning

Why does self-created meaning != real meaning? Why is it necessarily inferior?

And also... people like myself do it all the time, so obviously it's reasonable.

 

[KFunk]

We can make an exception in the case of God because he is not a created being - and therefore there is no external validator source beyond himself (since he needs not be validated at all). This is as opposed to a created human who certainly does have a validator beyond himself.

But this isn't a problem for an atheist, because from the perspective of the atheist humans are not created beings either. Thus your objection that the atheistic position leads to meaninglessness doesn't hold because it rests on the assumed existence of a creator (without which we "need not be validated at all").

 

[KFunk]

Fuck off bitches, I call shotgun!

Haha, cheers mate. I am but a consumer of brains. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.