Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[BoilinOatRunner]

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).

For my point to make sense the value imo doesn't need to be equivalent (I agree that a life should be worth more than a diamond), it just needs to show how one can very successfully deal with something which we ultimately understand to be artificial/worthless as if it is something real/of worth... I think most people, despite knowing that the value of a diamond is a human construction, will still value it, the human construction is all that they know, it is as if they were to be placed in a virtual reality that set the value of the diamond at 0, their mind sets the reality and they can't escape from it.

The point is merely that 'real' value can be apparent even in the mind of someone who holds something to hold no real value. The strength of such values is a non-matter... imo.

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.

No even if an objective morality exists they're still just imagining it... Unless you feel god instills morality in us?

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

How people arrive at their morals and what they're setting out to do seem two entirely different matters to me.

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).

You've never held an irrational fear? It's much the same.

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.

They're not really tricking themselves consciously, they're trapped in their mind and it's set the parameters. It's like if you were in a game and one of its rules were 'its ok to kill others', this would then become your moral stance even if you had the ability to sometimes think critically and go "where is my justification for any of this?". The problem is that we have no ability to transcend our own minds, we're always stuck as subjective beings that will probably always have brains evolved in such a way that they feel there are objective morals.

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.

It's not so much of an act as it's the way our brains end up going when we're not thinking critically.

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.

No bigger than the assumption that pixies don't make us fall in love, we can understand roughly how moral awareness comes about through biological means... just as we can understand roughly how love does.

If you think the assumption that pixies don't make us fall in love is a big one then I suppose you're right.

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.

So now you think from reading the bible we can come to know/have an inkling of the will of god? I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Hey bradcube, what uni do you go to? We should set up a formal debate... I'll accept "Can real morality exist without God?"

 

[BradCube]

Hey bradcube, what uni do you go to? We should set up a formal debate... I'll accept "Can real morality exist without God?"

I don't actually go to uni (although I am flattered that you think I do!). I don't know how well I would go in a real life formal debate without even going to uni. I imagine I would be dismissed before I even spoke a word

 

[BradCube]

For my point to make sense the value imo doesn't need to be equivalent (I agree that a life should be worth more than a diamond), it just needs to show how one can very successfully deal with something which we ultimately understand to be artificial/worthless as if it is something real/of worth... I think most people, despite knowing that the value of a diamond is a human construction, will still value it, the human construction is all that they know, it is as if they were to be placed in a virtual reality that set the value of the diamond at 0, their mind sets the reality and they can't escape from it.

The point is merely that 'real' value can be apparent even in the mind of someone who holds something to hold no real value. The strength of such values is a non-matter... imo.

I think we're actually in agreement here so I will make one change to that last statement before I back it with my full endorsement

"The point is merely that people can act as though 'real' value is apparent even in the mind of someone who holds something to be of no real value."

No even if an objective morality exists they're still just imagining it... Unless you feel god instills morality in us?

Two things here. If objective morality does exist, then it is not as though people are imagining it, they are trying to grapple with something they don't completely understand.

The second is to say that I do actually feel that God instills us with a sense of morality. Pinpointing this exactly can be troublesome though because people's sense or moral judgment can be altered and de-sensitized.

How people arrive at their morals and what they're setting out to do seem two entirely different matters to me.

Why does it make a difference though if both of them end up being only applicable to the individual after all?

You've never held an irrational fear? It's much the same.

I've never held an irrational fear that I can't move beyond. If I truly regard it as irrational, then why would it inhibit me? I've certainly never had an irrational fear, which I have then advocated as being real to others (as is the case with an atheist advocating support for the removal of slavery)

They're not really tricking themselves consciously, they're trapped in their mind and it's set the parameters. It's like if you were in a game and one of its rules were 'its ok to kill others', this would then become your moral stance even if you had the ability to sometimes think critically and go "where is my justification for any of this?". The problem is that we have no ability to transcend our own minds, we're always stuck as subjective beings that will probably always have brains evolved in such a way that they feel there are objective morals.

But clearly in this forum we are stopping and saying "where is my justification for any of this?". My problem is not so much that the atheist still personally feels a certain way after discovering the lack of objective morality, but rather that they continue to advocate certain parts of their morality in a way that would suggest they do in fact believe in objective morality. (Quite a mouthful there )

It's not so much of an act as it's the way our brains end up going when we're not thinking critically.

Yeah, I can understand this. For example, even if I believed that subjective morality were true, I would still struggle to take anothers life. This may change over time as I come to a realization of what it means for their to be no objective truth. Beyond that though I think I would find this strong conviction as good reason to re-examine whether it is possible for objective truth to exist. Certainly I would not promote the belief that taking another life is wrong if I truly believed that "right" and "wrong" themselves are solely based on the individual.

No bigger than the assumption that pixies don't make us fall in love, we can understand roughly how moral awareness comes about through biological means... just as we can understand roughly how love does.

If you think the assumption that pixies don't make us fall in love is a big one then I suppose you're right.

So we're back now at the existence of God altogether. We can go back to this if you like, but it's not what we're actually discussing at the moment.

So now you think from reading the bible we can come to know/have an inkling of the will of god? I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

Well, if we are talking about the Christian God, then yes. If you are asking why my belief is founded in the Christian God (as opposed to any other religion or Gods existence at all) then that's what this whole thread is about!

A couple of things we go back to I suppose. Two that come to mind are the Kalam Cosmological Argument and how I am personally convinced in the character of Jesus Christ. We can go onto these also, but I would prefer to finish the topic at hand first

 

[Kwayera]

Well, if we are talking about the Christian God, then yes. If you are asking why my belief is founded in the Christian God (as opposed to any other religion or Gods existence at all) then that's what this whole thread is about!

I'll bite. Why ARE they founded in the Christian God?

 

[BradCube]

I'll bite. Why ARE they founded in the Christian God?

I'll try and answer properly tomorrow Kwayera but you may have to redefine what you mean for me exactly. Why are the bible and Jesus founded in the Christian God? I thought that was pretty self explanatory, so I assume you must mean something else that I'm not quite understanding.

Anyway, I'm off to play Team Fortress 2 for the rest of the night - but do elaborate for me

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Two things here. If objective morality does exist, then it is not as though people are imagining it, they are trying to grapple with something they don't completely understand.

No, it's like they're trying to grapple with something that they have no way of ever knowing.

The second is to say that I do actually feel that God instills us with a sense of morality. Pinpointing this exactly can be troublesome though because people's sense or moral judgment can be altered and de-sensitized.

I'd imagine pinpointing it might be hard because we have no way of truly finding it where we can say 'that's gods morality and there's no way it's anything else', if we could we'd have evidence for god.

Why does it make a difference though if both of them end up being only applicable to the individual after all?

I don't understand your question after reading it a couple of times, I'll think of a better response than this, watch this spot.

I've never held an irrational fear that I can't move beyond. If I truly regard it as irrational, then why would it inhibit me? I've certainly never had an irrational fear, which I have then advocated as being real to others (as is the case with an atheist advocating support for the removal of slavery)

We dislike our rational fears, we often like our moral stances in a self-referencial kind of way. The point here is just that we are not logical/rational creatures, I can provide plenty of examples of this if you really need them.

But clearly in this forum we are stopping and saying "where is my justification for any of this?". My problem is not so much that the atheist still personally feels a certain way after discovering the lack of objective morality, but rather that they continue to advocate certain parts of their morality in a way that would suggest they do in fact believe in objective morality. (Quite a mouthful there )

You can believe in a subjective morality but still feel yours is better, obviously not better by any ultimate sense but you still feel it's better. It's impossible to escape the trappings of humanity as a human.

. Beyond that though I think I would find this strong conviction as good reason to re-examine whether it is possible for objective truth to exist. Certainly I would not promote the belief that taking another life is wrong if I truly believed that "right" and "wrong" themselves are solely based on the individual.

Why wouldn't you? I believe murder is wrong because I feel empathy for those who have their lives taken from them. Someone who disagrees may ultimately have equal ground to think it's ok to murder someone, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for my subjective understanding to trump theirs. To believe in a constructed sense of morality is not to remove yourself from your own construction, just to understand what it ultimately is.

So we're back now at the existence of God altogether. We can go back to this if you like, but it's not what we're actually discussing at the moment.

Yeah sure, I'd love you to explain how an assumption that pixies create love is less valid than an assumption that god creates morals.

 

[Kwayera]

I'll try and answer properly tomorrow Kwayera but you may have to redefine what you mean for me exactly. Why are the bible and Jesus founded in the Christian God? I thought that was pretty self explanatory, so I assume you must mean something else that I'm not quite understanding.

Anyway, I'm off to play Team Fortress 2 for the rest of the night - but do elaborate for me

I meant why are your beliefs centered in the Christian God - as opposed to any other Gods which are just as valid.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Don't mention statistics or odds in your argument, because the belief that Atheists claim occurrences to be members of a random event is a fallacy.

Sorry, can you explain? I don't fully understand, and I don't want to disagree with you (which I think I do) until it makes sense. What do you mean "occurrence"?

I think that most atheists (it's not a proper noun, by the way) would claim that a lot of what we see in the universe is "random" in that it's inexplicable to us at this moment simply because we don't have enough data or understanding of it.

 

[Enteebee]

It can be a confusing position though... and understandably when you read a paper which explains what 'random' means in (for example) genetics.

 

[xeuyrawp]

It can be a confusing position though... and understandably when you read a paper which explains what 'random' means in (for example) genetics.

But doesn't quantum mechanics, for example, posit that if you can observe and interpret everything, you see that nothing is random?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

It posits that the more certainly you can observe and interpret one thing, the less certainly you can observe and interpret something else. It also posits that the act of observing something changes the possible states it can be in.

 

[xeuyrawp]

It posits that the more certainly you can observe and interpret one thing, the less certainly you can observe and interpret something else. It also posits that the act of observing something changes the possible states it can be in.

Yeah the cat.

Edit: Actually sorry I have nfi what I'm talking about. Has been yonks since I sat in on a Philosophy of Science course.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well it basically rules out determinism at the microscopic level because the more accurately you measure the position of a particle, the less accurately you can measure its momentum, and the opposite way around is also true.

It also allows for the temporary appearance of particles out of 'nothing' without an apparent cause.

I think all Alan meant was that atheists don't really believe that the world/life came about "by random chance", which is a very common straw man used by creationists regarding evolution. Instead they believe that what seems like an unlikely thing (life) came about through a series of billions of not-unlikely events governed by consistent natural laws.

need halp here: http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=168353&page=4

 

[BradCube]

No, it's like they're trying to grapple with something that they have no way of ever knowing.

Sure, if by knowing you mean having empirical proof for. I don't see how this disqualifies my point though. If real objective morality does exist, then it could very well be that people are trying to grapple with it, even if they have no such empirical proof of that objective morality.

I'd imagine pinpointing it might be hard because we have no way of truly finding it where we can say 'that's gods morality and there's no way it's anything else', if we could we'd have evidence for god.

That, and the nature of morality is that it doesn't really leave data for us to use as evidence.

We dislike our rational fears, we often like our moral stances in a self-referencial kind of way. The point here is just that we are not logical/rational creatures, I can provide plenty of examples of this if you really need them.

So, your telling me then that the person supporting moral subjectivity whilst promoting the view that slavery is evil is simply illogical? If so, then I think I have been agreeing with you all along.

You can believe in a subjective morality but still feel yours is better, obviously not better by any ultimate sense but you still feel it's better. It's impossible to escape the trappings of humanity as a human.

I don't think your trapping is as large as you are making it out to be. The atheist acknowledges a lack of objective morality, but still feels that his morality is better? Why and how could it possibly be? Again, I feel the only answer is that He/She is being illogical or that they hold contradictory beliefs.

Why wouldn't you? I believe murder is wrong because I feel empathy for those who have their lives taken from them. Someone who disagrees may ultimately have equal ground to think it's ok to murder someone, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for my subjective understanding to trump theirs. To believe in a constructed sense of morality is not to remove yourself from your own construction, just to understand what it ultimately is.

Why wouldn't I? Because as we have shown, I have absolutely no grounds to think that my belief is in any sense better than someone else's view (regardless of the reasoning behind it). I just don't understand at all how a subjective view of morality could possibly "trump" anothers when they all have neutral value. Simply believing something is wrong or right doesn't make it so, because under the atheist view there is no right or wrong at all.

Yeah sure, I'd love you to explain how an assumption that pixies create love is less valid than an assumption that god creates morals.

Meh, I am so tired of this argument now, that I'm not going to bother. You can read some reasoning that I posted a couple of pages back in regards to pixie vs. God if you please.

 

[BradCube]

I meant why are your beliefs centered in the Christian God - as opposed to any other Gods which are just as valid.

Although views are certainly subject to change, at the moment my beliefs being centered in the Christian God are for a few reasons.

1. The person of Jesus and the records that are taken of him seem reasonable enough to regard as historical. With this in mind, looking at what Jesus came to do (ie allowing forgiveness to be possible) make a great deal of sense to me in comparison to other religions. By this I simply mean that it makes sense to me that we cannot earn our way to God, but instead need God to intervene for our sake.

2. The concept of the Christian God makes a good deal of philosophical sense. This could simply be because I have been exposed to more christian apologetics than that of other religions but nevertheless, I feel I am able to offer at least a reasonable defense of my belief in the Christian God. A God with the characteristics of timelessness, omniscience etc bodes well with a look at our own seemingly temporary nature and the origins of the universe.

3. The Bible as a book itself holds together with reasonable coherency - a feat in my mind considering the multitude of writers. I must admit that I feel a little more on shaky grounds making this claim in recent times however - it certainly is a large topic of debate

4. Supernatural acts:

I thought I would use this point to ask a question that I have been meaning to for a while. Keep in mind this isn't me really trying to make a point or argument here but more honestly a question asking; "what I am to make of the seemingly supernatural acts I have witnessed under an atheist view"?

Things in particular are healings of people (a broken ankle healed instantly), casting out of demons, speaking in tongues etc?

It's easy for the atheist that has not witnessed such events to push them under the rug and pretend they never happened but what am I to say when I have seen and witnessed these things? I cannot simply ignore. So I ask, what would an atheist offer as a reasonable explanation in all these cases without simply dismissing them altogether?

 

[xeuyrawp]

I think all Alan meant was that atheists don't really believe that the world/life came about "by random chance", which is a very common straw man used by creationists regarding evolution. Instead they believe that what seems like an unlikely thing (life) came about through a series of billions of not-unlikely events governed by consistent natural laws.

Yeah okay that's what I thought. I partially disagree. I think most atheists say things like 'life, the universe, etc is all a fluke/random', when really if you press them, they acknowledge that life, the universe, etc is founded based on basic natural constraints. Like Alan pointed out, these are two different things.

I think that's why a lot of religious people dismiss atheists as people with no optimism and no hope, when really human and natural science is far more enlightening than religion.

I also think that a lot of atheists are themselves pessimistic about the whole thing, when really they should be happy that they're not devoting their time to something that is surely futile.

 

[KFunk]

I don't think your trapping is as large as you are making it out to be. The atheist acknowledges a lack of objective morality, but still feels that his morality is better? Why and how could it possibly be? Again, I feel the only answer is that He/She is being illogical or that they hold contradictory beliefs.

As long as the individual who rejects objective morality indexes their concept of 'better' no problem arises. In other words, as long as by 'moral theory X is better than Y' they mean ['I]relative to my personal value system, moral theory X may be judged superior to Y' [/I] there is no issue.

Surely this is a fairly simple solution?

1. The person of Jesus and the records that are taken of him seem reasonable enough to regard as historical. With this in mind, looking at what Jesus came to do (ie allowing forgiveness to be possible) make a great deal of sense to me in comparison to other religions. By this I simply mean that it makes sense to me that we cannot earn our way to God, but instead need God to intervene for our sake.

2. The concept of the Christian God makes a good deal of philosophical sense. This could simply be because I have been exposed to more christian apologetics than that of other religions but nevertheless, I feel I am able to offer at least a reasonable defense of my belief in the Christian God. A God with the characteristics of timelessness, omniscience etc bodes well with a look at our own seemingly temporary nature and the origins of the universe.

3. The Bible as a book itself holds together with reasonable coherency - a feat in my mind considering the multitude of writers. I must admit that I feel a little more on shaky grounds making this claim in recent times however - it certainly is a large topic of debate

4. Supernatural acts:

I thought I would use this point to ask a question that I have been meaning to for a while. Keep in mind this isn't me really trying to make a point or argument here but more honestly a question asking; "what I am to make of the seemingly supernatural acts I have witnessed under an atheist view"?

Things in particular are healings of people (a broken ankle healed instantly), casting out of demons, speaking in tongues etc?

It's easy for the atheist that has not witnessed such events to push them under the rug and pretend they never happened but what am I to say when I have seen and witnessed these things? I cannot simply ignore. So I ask, what would an atheist offer as a reasonable explanation in all these cases without simply dismissing them altogether?.

(1) Need god make sense? (facetious, I realise, but not wholly unreasonable)

(2) As you point out, you have not been exposed to many apologetics of other faiths. While the reasonableness of the Christian god may work in favour of accepting that god, it does not, in the absence of knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of other faiths, explain why you reject (/do not accept) other deities or theological systems.

(3) And what of the apocrypha which have been conveniently cast aside? Surely you could take other holy texts and go about the task of hedge clipping until a reasonable degree of coherence similarly emerges.

(4) You seem to beg the question here since you argue for the possibility of the supernatural by assuming the existence of supernatural events. I say 'assuming' because, to take one example, the notion that demons are, in fact, being excised is very controversial. To simply assume that demons exist, and can possess individuals, and can be cast out through the appropriate rituals is to bypass the critical arguments (about the very existence of the supernatural) and thus, I contend, to beg the question. I do not deny that events may well have taken place with an appearance that is consistent with the exorcism of evil entities, but to quickly jump to the conclusion that an exorcism has actually taken place is, in my mind, poor intellectual practice.

 

[*TRUE*]

is it possible the ankle wasnt broken in the first place? or had time to fully heal before being healed instantly? was it acknowledged by doctors as being miraculous? i was raised in the pentecostal branch, and have seen many people get prayed for, speak in tongues, cast out demons, do crazy shit, but nothing i can conclusively say supported the existence of god. all i saw was people who believe in god get caught up in the environment and the moment.
you also have to look at why the church believes god actually influences these things, which usually comes down to a literal interpretation of the bible (which doesnt seem to go too nicely with science) hence my right to be skeptical.

Hmm. The other week I did hear of an older man with very bad heart disease , who was prayed for and on the next visit to the hospital , the doctor said , i really cant explain this , but you have the heart of a teenager , no trace of heart disease..that's nice for him.
I think I do believe that God can heal....i used to wonder why he doesnt seem to heal everyone. Specifically my close friend....she's been so ill. I used to wonder if i just didnt have enouh faith, i pray for her all the time. She wonders if God doesnt love her enough.

 

[Stevo.]

Although views are certainly subject to change, at the moment my beliefs being centered in the Christian God are for a few reasons.

1. The person of Buddha and the records that are taken of him seem reasonable enough to regard as historical. With this in mind, looking at what Buddha came to do (ie reaching enlightenment to be possible) make a great deal of sense to me in comparison to other religions. By this I simply mean that it makes sense to me that we cannot earn our way to Nirvana, but instead need to search within ourselves to intervene for our sake.

2. The concept of the Bodhi makes a good deal of philosophical sense. This could simply be because I have been exposed to more traditional Asian cultural influences than that of other cultures but nevertheless, I feel I am able to offer at least a reasonable defense of my belief in the of the Bodhi. An ideal state with the characteristics of timelessness, omniscience etc bodes well with a look at our own seemingly temporary nature and the origins of the universe.

3. The Noble Eigthfold Path itself holds together with reasonable coherency - a feat in my mind considering the difficulty of tracing it's origins. I must admit that I feel a little more on shaky grounds making this claim in recent times however - it certainly is a large topic of debate

4. Supernatural acts:

I'm a superstitious pot smoking fuck who sees hallucinations and attribute them to devine influence for lack of a better reason. I must be enlightened.

FIX'D