Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[allyuk]

If; as scientists say; the universe is expanding and contracting then musn't that mean that it has edges? as how can something get bigger and smaller if it doesn't have ends..?

If it does in fact have edges then what is outside of those edges?...or outside of the universe?...nothingess..forever and ever? when does it end?

Makes you think that someone/something must have created the universe...it's the only plausable explanation, or us humans are just not clever enough to understand the concept of infinity?


Ummm?..I'm confused.

 

[Slidey]

Study some space-time topology and you won't be.

 

[xeuyrawp]

If; as scientists say; the universe is expanding and contracting then musn't that mean that it has edges? as how can something get bigger and smaller if it doesn't have ends..?

If it does in fact have edges then what is outside of those edges?...or outside of the universe?...nothingess..forever and ever? when does it end?

Makes you think that someone/something must have created the universe...it's the only plausable explanation, or us humans are just not clever enough to understand the concept of infinity?


Ummm?..I'm confused.

What...?

Don't believe in God simply because you currently have no other explanation. I think that's one of the major traps of religion; "I/humanity doesn't understand x, so it must have been God." Because, as Russell (among others) pointed out, the more we understand the universe, the smaller god becomes.

A scientific conclusion can certainly be "We don't understand this. Let's do more tests."

 

[allyuk]

I don't believe in God I was trying to make the point, how can something go on forever without stopping?

Everything has an end, even the universe...which means there's something there like a wall or something...but what's beyond that?

Or maybe it never ends?..A concept which is pretty hard to imagine.

 

[Kwayera]

If; as scientists say; the universe is expanding and contracting then musn't that mean that it has edges? as how can something get bigger and smaller if it doesn't have ends..?

If it does in fact have edges then what is outside of those edges?...or outside of the universe?...nothingess..forever and ever? when does it end?

Makes you think that someone/something must have created the universe...it's the only plausable explanation, or us humans are just not clever enough to understand the concept of infinity?


Ummm?..I'm confused.

Hit the nail on the head...


Well, not quite, but infinity is a difficult concept. And obviously all we have are hypotheses, given we CAN'T go to the 'edges' of the universe.

 

[Sammy-Blue]

given we CAN'T go to the 'edges' of the universe.

Maybe YOU can't

 

[Kwayera]

Maybe YOU can't

Well, no. Physical impossibility

 

[Slidey]

Kwayera is correct. We do not even know that there is an 'edge' of the universe, since we've never observed such a thing (and we never will since we can't travel fast enough to observe more than like 1/10000 of the universe maximum), but are just assuming based on physical constants and the distribution pattern of the galaxies we CAN see.

TBH it's most likely a funky topology like a Moebius strip or something - there is, in fact, no end.

 

[Omium]

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

You on coke boi?

 

[BradCube]

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.

Whilst in many senses I actually agree with you here, would you like to elaborate and share why you have these beliefs as opposed to "it's true because I say it is".

Also it's probably worth mentioning that I think you may have misunderstood my original point. My point was not to say that the theist does what is actually right, only that he does whatever he believes to be actually right. This is as compared to the non-theist who does whatever they please, because they believe morality is only applicable to the individual.

I would also like to make mention that I don't see how someones morality arose as disqualification that objective morality exists. To make this jump, falls prey to the genetic fallacy, no?

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.

Not necessarily, because you're assuming that someones morality cannot be altered or changed (desensitized etc). People also have a habbit of doing things they believe they shouldn't be. Besides, apart from all of this, the very nature of objective morality is that it exists regardless of whether we believe it does or not so conflict in the world can entirely exist whilst objective morality does.

 

[BradCube]

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...

So it seems you and I are in agreement then. For if you believe something is right for me, but wrong for you, then the value of "wrong" really doesn't mean anything at all - it's neutral.

The problem that I have then is what is seemingly conflicting impressions I gain from atheists. If we are to truly say that morality/meaning/value etc are only applicable for the individual, then all morality statements have no real underlying meaning - they too are neutral. This means saying things such as "sexism should be abolished", "we should not condone slavery", "torture is wrong", "rape is detestable" have no value. It's no better than the flapping of gums. Yet all too often it seems that atheists avidly support things like equal rights, the fight against child slavery etc. Surely then they must realize that in doing so, they have done nothing more than quench there own personal construction of meaning? I seem to get the feeling that even though an atheist says that meaning/morality is for the individual, their actions reveal a conflict in their beliefs.

That is truly all we have, even if you believe in God.

Don't think that I really agree with this, but it could be taken two ways. If you mean to say that even if there is a God, meaning can't exist, then I of course disagree.

If you mean to say that even if there is a God, all we can rely on is our own opinion of what that God would want, then I'm semi inclined to agree with you. I suppose it comes down to finding out whether that God could be one that we know of today, and if it is, then looking at the moral guide He has already given.

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, it is the way in which they are seeing it that is of most concern to me actually. For I would far rather be in the position that real objective meaning does exist, (even if I fail at discovering that meaning and create my own) then in the position of believing that no objective meaning exists, so I will create my own.

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.

Why, if you actually believe that meaning is only applicable to yourself, would you continue to think that things really matter? It's this conflict which makes me think that people don't truly believe in subjective morality - only that in some instances, it makes things easier or more explicable.

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.

Sure, a non factor if there is no personal God that would reveal such meaning/truths etc. This isn't what I'm really arguing though, I'm arguing that for real meaning to exist, then God is necessary. Even if we know of God or not, it doesn't really change my position.

 

[BradCube]

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'.

I'm not saying that meaning can't exist. I am saying that objective real meaning cannot exist without God. I'm talking about the sense of meaning most people believe to be true when saying "torture is wrong" and "life has value". It's my experience that when most people talk about these issue's, they feel as if they are talking about something that actually does have meaning and carries weight universally. However, this sort of meaning cannot be possible without a God that can create objective truth. This is because people cannot believe contradictory things and both be entirely correct with weight simultaneously.

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?

This could be due to a variety of reasons - depression and lack of belief in objective truth etc. More than that though, I feel this question is pretty loaded since I observe many people who believe that they do in fact have meaning without believing in God. Even if we did all lack perceived meaning though, this doesn't necessarily mean that God does not exist. God could still exist, as could objective meaning even if we did not know it - this is why it is objective.

In order to gain this universal 'meaning' that god instilled within us, why must we first believe in god?

You don't have to believe in God for objective morality/meaning etc to exist. I find that many people who don't believe in God still believe that the beliefs in value, morality etc still exist, so I'm kind of lost by this point.

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?

From my experience many can and do.

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

Sure, if objective meaning does not exist, then anyone's personal meaning is as good as anothers so it shouldn't really bother you anyway. If it turned out that the God that set objective meaning up in the first place, was the God of the Bible, then the bible would represent the complete opposite of personal meaning however.

 

[BradCube]

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...

I guess this ties back to what I was talking about with 3unitz in that I first must of had to assume that value was actually meaningful and worth something. We must be careful though, because using an individual value/meaning system does not mean that an objective value system is immediately disqualified. Genetic fallacy me thinks

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

So it seems you and I are in agreement then. For if you believe something is right for me, but wrong for you, then the value of "wrong" really doesn't mean anything at all - it's neutral.

The problem that I have then is what is seemingly conflicting impressions I gain from atheists. If we are to truly say that morality/meaning/value etc are only applicable for the individual, then all morality statements have no real underlying meaning - they too are neutral. This means saying things such as "sexism should be abolished", "we should not condone slavery", "torture is wrong", "rape is detestable" have no value. It's no better than the flapping of gums. Yet all too often it seems that atheists avidly support things like equal rights, the fight against child slavery etc. Surely then they must realize that in doing so, they have done nothing more than quench there own personal construction of meaning? I seem to get the feeling that even though an atheist says that meaning/morality is for the individual, their actions reveal a conflict in their beliefs.

Is there something you don't understand about my example? You accept that the 'worth' of a diamond is an artificial human construction right? Just as much as you hold a diamond to be worth something can an atheist (and for that matter because I think your solution visavi god is flawed all people) hold that slavery is wrong.

If you mean to say that even if there is a God, all we can rely on is our own opinion of what that God would want, then I'm semi inclined to agree with you. I suppose it comes down to finding out whether that God could be one that we know of today, and if it is, then looking at the moral guide He has already given.

I mean that... Furthermore it seems to me to be little different between when a person searches for some abstract 'greater good' in their moral decisions and placing a god there.

Well, it is the way in which they are seeing it that is of most concern to me actually. For I would far rather be in the position that real objective meaning does exist, (even if I fail at discovering that meaning and create my own) then in the position of believing that no objective meaning exists, so I will create my own.

Seems to make little difference at all to me...

Why, if you actually believe that meaning is only applicable to yourself, would you continue to think that things really matter? It's this conflict which makes me think that people don't truly believe in subjective morality - only that in some instances, it makes things easier or more explicable.

Well you're right that most of the time I don't live in a world with subjective morality, I 100% accept this... even right now I have this sense of 'right and wrong' which is most likely hardwired into us as an evolutionary advantage. This doesn't mean that arguments suggesting that in the end logically our morals are merely subjective are flawed though, it is possible to both hold logically that X is true while still practicing as if !X is true due somewhat to practicalities (to take an extreme example, I am aware that my body is basically made up of waves... however I don't understand my existence in this way, I live in the realm of 'physical' solid objects)...

Sure, a non factor if there is no personal God that would reveal such meaning/truths etc. This isn't what I'm really arguing though, I'm arguing that for real meaning to exist, then God is necessary. Even if we know of God or not, it doesn't really change my position.

The thing is... imo what you're saying when you're asking for objective moral truths is something that is impossible, so obviously the only way for this to be true is to create a creature which can do the impossible. It isn't "real meaning"... It's fake meaning because the meaning that you're searching for just doesn't exist.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I'm not saying that meaning can't exist. I am saying that objective real meaning cannot exist without God. I'm talking about the sense of meaning most people believe to be true when saying "torture is wrong" and "life has value". It's my experience that when most people talk about these issue's, they feel as if they are talking about something that actually does have meaning and carries weight universally. However, this sort of meaning cannot be possible without a God that can create objective truth. This is because people cannot believe contradictory things and both be entirely correct with weight simultaneously.

It's like saying a 3 sided triangle can't exist without God... I would say finding meaning is a subjective task by definition. People do talk although there are universal morals probably because in a way there are some morals that for us are just unshakable, it has been instilled in us through a shared culture/evolution etc that murder is wrong, most of us won't be able to shake this off through logical argument. It's like trying to tell little baby albert logically not to be scared of white rabbits after running those nasty behaviourist experiments on him, it's simply not going to work even if he accepts your logical conclusions, our brains aren't hardwired to be rational in all aspects of our life, it isn't always evolutionarily advantageous.

 

[KFunk]

im about to read a book on the evolution of morals, ill come back to this point.

Which one?

 

[BradCube]

Which one?

Was just thinking the same thing

 

[BradCube]

Is there something you don't understand about my example? You accept that the 'worth' of a diamond is an artificial human construction right? Just as much as you hold a diamond to be worth something can an atheist (and for that matter because I think your solution visavi god is flawed all people) hold that slavery is wrong.

I think we may be confusing the sorts of value we are talking about. I doubt most people think of the value of a diamond in the same terms as they do human life. Human life has intrinsic value - it is not regarded as a means to an end, rather it is end unto itself.

Now with this in mind, I can't help but wonder how the atheist can proclaim certain things as morally wrong, all the while saying them with passion as if they actually carry weight, when in reality, they go no further than themselves. Does this make sense?

I mean that... Furthermore it seems to me to be little different between when a person searches for some abstract 'greater good' in their moral decisions and placing a god there.

Sure, but remember this has to do with how we arrive at the correct morals in objective morality as opposed to whether it can even exist at all. If they don't exist then it doesn't really matter how people arrive at them after all!

Well you're right that most of the time I don't live in a world with subjective morality, I 100% accept this... even right now I have this sense of 'right and wrong' which is most likely hardwired into us as an evolutionary advantage. This doesn't mean that arguments suggesting that in the end logically our morals are merely subjective are flawed though, it is possible to both hold logically that X is true while still practicing as if !X is true due somewhat to practicalities (to take an extreme example, I am aware that my body is basically made up of waves... however I don't understand my existence in this way, I live in the realm of 'physical' solid objects)...

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I find it worrying to think that we should simply ignore what our heart tells us when making logical discussion, especially when it has to do with moral conviction. I find this strong moral conviction as good reason to be very careful that we don't intellectually do away with the whole thing!

Now, whilst I have said this, it is because of this conflict that I would find myself troubled and depressed if it turned out that there was no objective morality. What am I to make of these strong moral convictions, if they serve no useful purpose apart from evolutionary gain? It's because of the strength of conviction I feel in this area that I would be lost if I discovered that they were simply a facade all along.

The thing is... imo what you're saying when you're asking for objective moral truths is something that is impossible, so obviously the only way for this to be true is to create a creature which can do the impossible. It isn't "real meaning"... It's fake meaning because the meaning that you're searching for just doesn't exist.

Pretty loaded, so I don't know how to answer this without sounding like a tool. Again, the only way it is impossible is without a God, so yes, God is necessary. To claim that the real meaning that I am looking for is fake because it doesn't exist, starts with the assumption that God does not exist - which is a bold assumption to make. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I think we may be confusing the sorts of value we are talking about. I doubt most people think of the value of a diamond in the same terms as they do human life. Human life has intrinsic value - it is not regarded as a means to an end, rather it is end unto itself.

People value diamonds as having intrinsic value. The point no matter what 'type' of value we place on things is that while the value of a diamond is a mere human construction (as you've conceeded) that meer human construction is still more than powerful enough to be set in your mind that the diamond is worth something, you don't think "it isn't REALLY worth something..." and that is exactly the way people feel with constructions of their lives.

In practice I think what people do to make it easier to feel they have 'objective morality' is imagine some sort of a 'sense of right and wrong', which is sort of like 'common sense'... garbage when examined critically, but it more than allows for a practical human grasp of objective morals that doesn't require a god.

Sure, but remember this has to do with how we arrive at the correct morals in objective morality as opposed to whether it can even exist at all. If they don't exist then it doesn't really matter how people arrive at them after all!

Well I think it does matter how people arrive at their morals even if they don't exist, it doesn't objectively matter but I have opinions on the universe which are probably shared by other humanbeings through a shared culture/evolution/history and a shared existence in an objective reality, even if we can't KNOW for certain that we understand it.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I find it worrying to think that we should simply ignore what our heart tells us when making logical discussion, especially when it has to do with moral conviction. I find this strong moral conviction as good reason to be very careful that we don't intellectually do away with the whole thing!

"What our heart tells us" is usually just another logical possibility... I would say I'd need to know the circumstance. But I don't have a problem with people trusting in their intuition in their everyday lives, for the most part I think it gets us through... It's mainly scientists/academics who have to leave it behind.

Now, whilst I have said this, it is because of this conflict that I would find myself troubled and depressed if it turned out that there was no objective morality. What am I to make of these strong moral convictions, if they serve no useful purpose apart from evolutionary gain? It's because of the strength of conviction I feel in this area that I would be lost if I discovered that they were simply a facade all along.

I have 'strong moral convictions' also, at best all that recognising the lack of objective morality leads to is perhaps a willingness to evaluate further the opinions of other people. For the most part though I imagine it does nothing... I feel the same strong moral convictions as you, I probably live most of the time in a world of as much objective morality is you (I actually don't think that many moral quandarys come up)... I just also take the philosophical position that there is no objective morality and even if there is we quite obviously have no means of discovering it, so it might as well not exist.

To claim that the real meaning that I am looking for is fake because it doesn't exist, starts with the assumption that God does not exist - which is a bold assumption to make.

Well I suppose your conception of God comes with objective morality... for the most part the sort of God you've been arguing for in the past is a lot smaller than this. It doesn't start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, it starts with the assumption that no God who's a moral arbiter exists.... which is fairly easy.

I could however even tone down my claim to "it isn't real meaning, if your "real meaning" exists than your meaning is fake meaning... the real meaning exists beyond your capability to grasp" as you seem to have in the past somewhat accepted that you can't know the will of God.

 

[BradCube]

People value diamonds as having intrinsic value. The point no matter what 'type' of value we place on things is that while the value of a diamond is a mere human construction (as you've conceeded) that meer human construction is still more than powerful enough to be set in your mind that the diamond is worth something, you don't think "it isn't REALLY worth something..." and that is exactly the way people feel with constructions of their lives.

Well you've lost me because I often find myself thinking that things such as diamonds, possessions and money aren't really worth anything. I certainly don't place them in line with the same type of value I regard human life. In fact, usually people that do this are regarded as morally problematic (ie the bad guy in the movie that kills others for diamonds or money).

In practice I think what people do to make it easier to feel they have 'objective morality' is imagine some sort of a 'sense of right and wrong', which is sort of like 'common sense'... garbage when examined critically, but it more than allows for a practical human grasp of objective morals that doesn't require a god.

Sure, if the God that I am proposing doesn't exist, then this must be what people are doing - there is no other option. If God does exist though, then it could be that they are actually trying to grapple with an objective morality that does in fact exist.

Well I think it does matter how people arrive at their morals even if they don't exist, it doesn't objectively matter but I have opinions on the universe which are probably shared by other humanbeings through a shared culture/evolution/history and a shared existence in an objective reality, even if we can't KNOW for certain that we understand it.

I'm confused by this point. Only a few posts back you said:

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.

This seems to be different to your approach now. Why should it matter how people arrive at their morals if they are neutral self thought anyway? We may, like you said, find other people that have similar personal senses of morality, but I don't see why this matters in how we arrive at that morality in the first place. Maybe I am missing something, or maybe you just like disagreeing with me

"What our heart tells us" is usually just another logical possibility... I would say I'd need to know the circumstance. But I don't have a problem with people trusting in their intuition in their everyday lives, for the most part I think it gets us through... It's mainly scientists/academics who have to leave it behind.

The problem lies in that the scientist or academic that "leaves it behind" still seems to believe anyway. I mean, sure, we can say that the scientist knows something even though he feels differently - but this doesn't explain why the scientist acts as though he knows what he in fact feels. If I were in the same position, I would be forced to give up entirely what I felt (hence why I would be saddened). I just don't see how someone can trick or fool themselves into believing something their whole life when they know the whole time that it is incorrect. This must feel like suicide for the scientist or academic that is used to only putting forward what they know or have proven to be true.

I have 'strong moral convictions' also, at best all that recognising the lack of objective morality leads to is perhaps a willingness to evaluate further the opinions of other people. For the most part though I imagine it does nothing... I feel the same strong moral convictions as you, I probably live most of the time in a world of as much objective morality is you (I actually don't think that many moral quandarys come up)... I just also take the philosophical position that there is no objective morality and even if there is we quite obviously have no means of discovering it, so it might as well not exist.

So effectively you just fall back into acting as if there is objective morality in life whilst also believing that there is not? I don't know that I could allow myself to be as convinced that this is the correct way to act in such a situation. I personally would be inclined to give up my feelings regarding objective morality in everyday life.

Well I suppose your conception of God comes with objective morality... for the most part the sort of God you've been arguing for in the past is a lot smaller than this. It doesn't start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, it starts with the assumption that no God who's a moral arbiter exists.... which is fairly easy.

I don't think it's all that easy at all. I still think that it is a fairly big assumption to make - especially when we are talking about God after all.

I could however even tone down my claim to "it isn't real meaning, if your "real meaning" exists than your meaning is fake meaning... the real meaning exists beyond your capability to grasp" as you seem to have in the past somewhat accepted that you can't know the will of God.

Hmm, I don't know that I have acknowledged this as much as you may have liked. The only way we could know the will of God would be if he had revealed it to us in some way. If we are talking about the Christian God then this is no problem as we have the Bible and Jesus to be moral guideposts on the issue. Though if you were talking about a God that had no interaction with humanity apart from the initial point of creation, then I would agree with you.