Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[BradCube]

If the value of a diamond can be a human construct why can't the value of a life, why can't our meaning? It works just as well, in that even though a diamond's worth is a human construct you won't throw one away... neither would you throw away a life.

Well you can choose to believe that the value of life is a human construct but I feel as though you are seriously undervaluing it because you are making its value variable. If human life is valued only by what I value human life as, then what happens if I value human life at 0? I am in no wrong by taking a life, since it's value is only determined on what I decide. It's a variable human construct.

You still create your "own sense of right" even if you do try (in a futile attempt I might add) to learn what is truly meaningful and right..

There is a difference I think. You're not creating your own sense of right, you're trying to abide by what you believe is right.

I don't think it really matters what you're setting out to do if in the end you're left with the same result anyway.

Well, that's kind of my point. If all meaning is humanly created then anything that goes on along the way (rape, suicide etc) doesn't matter because we end up with the same result anyway. (A dead universe)

People constructing their meaning while attempting to try and learn what is 'truly meaningful' will end up just constructing their own meaning from observations etc that they have no way of knowing are in any way a sign of the truth, in fact they end up in an infinite regress when they attempt to do this (by what method did you discern this meaning, their method will need to be backed up etc etc)... People constructing a meaning for themselves will probably look around the world, make observations and think about what's right although it's some concept outside of themselves also.

Well, this is a different argument altogether. It says that even if real meaning does exist, how would we ever find it? I'm sure there is probably a proper name for this, but either way, I think its an extra complication that we don't need to worry about yet. Not until we decide whether God is necessary for meaning anyway.

 

[_dhj_]

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.

What's the reason for equating the question of existence/essence of a being with that of "God"?

 

[Ennaybur]

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

omg he's modest too

take me now

 

[Wearingmyrolex]

There is a difference I think. You're not creating your own sense of right, you're trying to abide by what you believe is right.
.

and how does that feeling of what is right come about? from God? No, it comes from that bible you read and that television you watch. Our morality is entirely evolutionary and contextual. If we were all imbued with the same sense of right and wrong regardless of our demographic there would be no conflict in this world, you're dreaming buddy.

 

[BradCube]

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").

?. Humans are created even without a God. Possibly "created" is the wrong word. Caused as compared to uncaused is probably better terminology. Unless the atheist wants to deny a beginning and end of the universe (as current cosmology suggests) then I see no reason to think that this put them even close to the same playing field as God in regards to time. Even then, human life is but a spec in the period of the universes life.

 

[KFunk]

?. Humans are created even without a God. Possibly "created" is the wrong word. Caused as compared to uncaused is probably better terminology. Unless the atheist wants to deny a beginning and end of the universe (as current cosmology suggests) then is see no reason to think that this put them even close to the same playing field as God in regards to time. Even then, human life is but a spec in the period of the universes life.

I disagree. I think that 'created' is the right term because it is the associated ideas of purpose and intent (and the like) which are carried with the concept of creation that seem to bequeath meaning to the created (within the creationists framework). To fall back on the position that we are meaningful because 'we are created by an unmoved mover' seems incoherent (and overly ad hoc) to me. I don't see why something should have to be the start of a causal chain of events in order to have a right to the self-creation of meaning.

 

[BradCube]

How do you know? By what arrogance do you presume to know?

And "because he HAS to be" is not an appropriate answer.



Emphasis mine.

Well, I am sorry as I am going to pose the inappropriate answer

I necessarily know in my case, because if it were true that this were not the case then my argument would be void. To be honest I don't know where you are coming from. I am arguing that for meaning to be real, God with characteristics of a, b and c must be met. You turn around and say, but what if characteristic "a" is not true? Well then it follows that we do not have meaning and I am agreeing with you. Where is the problem? At the moment I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that for there to be real meaning such a God as I propose must exist, if He does not, then meaning does not exist.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Well you can choose to believe that the value of life is a human construct but I feel as though you are seriously undervaluing it because you are making its value variable. If human life is valued only by what I value human life as, then what happens if I value human life at 0? I am in no wrong by taking a life, since it's value is only determined on what I decide. It's a variable human construct.

It's more that you don't believe you've done anything wrong. I will still think you have though... It's a bit of a given thing, wouldn't you think? There is no 'this is wrong', just personal opinion... That is truly all we have, even if you believe in God.

There is a difference I think. You're not creating your own sense of right, you're trying to abide by what you believe is right.

There's no difference but a semantical one you just made up. I could say someone 'creating their own ethics' is trying to abide by what they believe is right... they're still constructing it but they probably don't necessarily see it that way.

Well, that's kind of my point. If all meaning is humanly created then anything that goes on along the way (rape, suicide etc) doesn't matter because we end up with the same result anyway. (A dead universe)

And it doesn't really matter, though our brains seem hardwired to think things 'matter'... we're slaves to our brains essentially so for us things always will.

Well, this is a different argument altogether. It says that even if real meaning does exist, how would we ever find it? I'm sure there is probably a proper name for this, but either way, I think its an extra complication that we don't need to worry about yet. Not until we decide whether God is necessary for meaning anyway.

I'm arguing that people construct meaning in their lives and this is all there is insofar as we ever shall know, there may be a god out there somewhere who has for us what he decrees (by his often contradictory omnipotence) to be 'objective morality/meaning/value/purpose' but that is essentially a non-factor to human life.

 

[BradCube]

I disagree. I think that 'created' is the right term because it is the associated ideas of purpose and intent (and the like) which are carried with the concept of creation that seem to bequeath meaning to the created (within the creationists framework). To fall back on the position that we are meaningful because 'we are created by an unmoved mover' seems incoherent (and overly ad hoc) to me. I don't see why something should have to be the start of a causal chain of events in order to have a right to the self-creation of meaning.

Well, either way, created or caused, I think the fact that a humans existence is temporary disqualifies them from any race in which their meaning ascription carries any worth.

Plus, you know how I feel about ad hoc arguments, so a meh to that

 

[_dhj_]

?. Humans are created even without a God. Possibly "created" is the wrong word. Caused as compared to uncaused is probably better terminology. Unless the atheist wants to deny a beginning and end of the universe (as current cosmology suggests) then is see no reason to think that this put them even close to the same playing field as God in regards to time. Even then, human life is but a spec in the period of the universes life.

The fact that humans are "created" is only meaningful in regards to whether they are "created" for a particular purpose, to particular ends. Atheists regard humans as "creations" of evolution. Thus there is no implicit meaning therein beyond their existence. If the theist claims that A) humans were "created" in the literal sense (without evolution), that assumption does not actually preclude a possible absence of inherent essence. On the other hand if B) god merely (or also) "guides" humans through evolution, that again does not support conclusively support the "inherent" essence hypothesis. In these cases all that can be assumed is the same as what can be assumed from the atheist view of "creation" (evolution) - that humans exist, and came to existence because of universe/god/evolution/all of the above.

 

[Wearingmyrolex]

Well, I am sorry as I am going to pose the inappropriate answer

I necessarily know in my case, because if it were true that this were not the case then my argument would be void. To be honest I don't know where you are coming from. I am arguing that for meaning to be real, God with characteristics of a, b and c must be met. You turn around and say, but what if characteristic "a" is not true? Well then it follows that we do not have meaning and I am agreeing with you. Where is the problem? At the moment I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that for there to be real meaning such a God as I propose must exist, if He does not, then meaning does not exist.

You aren't constructing an argument as to why meaning can't exist without a god, you're just saying 'thats the way it is'. Lets assume god exists and humans have meaning. Why then do so many of us lack any perceived meaning? Why is it possible for people to geniunely feel their lives have no purpose and be apathetic towards their entire existence?
In order to gain this universal 'meaning' that god instilled within us, why must we first believe in god? why can't we just all feel it without having to be essentially brainwashed by biblical literature or without growing up in a christian household?

Reading the bible and accepting 'gods word' is just another of the countless ways we can construct our own personal meaning

 

[BradCube]

the old testament, have you read it?

gods good nature is clearly defined by his gentle advocation of slavery, murder and rape. His absolute righteousness is an integral part of his very nature. Acts this good cannot be determined to be so, they just are.

Right...because God committed "abominations" in the old testament and disqualifies himself from being a moral judge. A pretty standard argument, do you really want us to go through it all?

 

[Wearingmyrolex]

Right...because God committed "abominations" in the old testament and disqualifies himself from being a moral judge. A pretty standard argument, do you really want us to go through it all?

No, i don't, i've read alot of the pages of this thread and ive seen the atheists bring up the point about the attrocities that god committed in the old testament, and i didnt see any plausable comeback or explanation by any of the christians.

 

[BradCube]

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.

Seems like a double negative kind of argument to make. On the one hand if value does exist then there is value in finding whether value exists. If not, then there is no value in finding out whether value exists.

I suppose we must assume a level of properly basic beliefs in investigating any of these matters. If we keep questioning things this far, we end up in non-nonsensical ramblings.

Oh and sorry to all that I am like 2 pages behind in all of my replies. I feel like it's 10 on 1

 

[BradCube]

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?

I suppose it doesn't need to be the God of the bible at all, just one that fits with the characteristics I am proposing. So while "God" is fitting so could as equally "god".

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Seems like a double negative kind of argument to make. On the one hand if value does exist then there is value in finding whether value exists. If not, then there is no value in finding out whether value exists.

I suppose we must assume a level of properly basic beliefs in investigating any of these matters. If we keep questioning things this far, we end up in non-nonsensical ramblings.

Oh and sorry to all that I am like 2 pages behind in all of my replies. I feel like it's 10 on 1

Asking you how you came to value god so that you can then accept his value-system (or try to) is a legitimate question imo, in the end you'll probably have to say something along the lines of you had some self-constructed sense...

 

[BradCube]

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)?

Well if it were that that other God existed, then good could be defined differently. Goodness itself would be different. However such talks become confusing because it supposes that there could be another God than what there is, when in fact there can only be the God that there is. Hence what is objectively good, is objectively good, has always been and will always be.

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.

Eh, well I feel like I have given reasons, so I don't know what more I can say here. I keep writing a deleting things, because it's just sounding like inconstant rubbish. With that in mind I think it's time for me to call it a night before I add confusion to the fray. Sorry to all those posts I haven't yet written a reply out for

 

[Teslacoil]

If there ever was a God, he is dead, and what are the odds that there was a God?

 

[BradCube]

once again, are these characteristics only meaningful to you because they are part of your personal construct of meaning?

okay you get I last reply because I <3 you

I suppose they are only meaningful to me because I regard them as meaningful. This is also why I view it as a properly basic belief, since it is inescabable for me to view this issue outside of my own view of logic. Extremely problematic to answer, because doing so relies on my own logic and what I find meaningful in your post above. Because of this, I'm finding it hard to take such an argument on board since I don't know that I can properly answer it.

I need to assume that my meaning is meaningful in order to search out and find whether meaning is actually meaningful. *cries and logs off*

 

[Slidey]

If there ever was a God, he is dead, and what are the odds that there was a God?

As high as those that there was any god at all?