God doesn't seem to exist!
22 Jun 2015, 7:47 pm
Janissy wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either. Their viewpoint doesn't suffice as an answer to the issues of epistemology and existentialism; if they want to hold to their metaphysical, and hence theological, position and at the same time argue for the existence and nature of morality, they cannot so easily separate themselves from nihilists without a valid and compelling argument. "I love" isn't argument enough.
Don't the philosophers ever talk to the anthropologists? The explanation for morality's existence is that we are social and intelligent creatures who need a code both to get along with other humans (the social part) and live in harmony with the world (the intelligent part). The constantly shifting nature of morality over the history of our species illustrates how much it is something humans create on an "as needed" basis rather than something handed to us by a deity.
Of course they do. This is why it would behoove secularists to better explain their particular morals along these lines. Btw, the two ideas in your last sentence aren't exactly mutually exclusive. This is where we get into what atheist existentialism would look like. Nietzsche was very pessimistic of an atheist's prospects in this regard.
Is there an evolutionary advantage to eugenics? If so what forms of it are acceptable? Should society be callously utilitarian?
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
22 Jun 2015, 8:08 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either. Their viewpoint doesn't suffice as an answer to the issues of epistemology and existentialism; if they want to hold to their metaphysical, and hence theological, position and at the same time argue for the existence and nature of morality, they cannot so easily separate themselves from nihilists without a valid and compelling argument. "I love" isn't argument enough.
Don't the philosophers ever talk to the anthropologists? The explanation for morality's existence is that we are social and intelligent creatures who need a code both to get along with other humans (the social part) and live in harmony with the world (the intelligent part). The constantly shifting nature of morality over the history of our species illustrates how much it is something humans create on an "as needed" basis rather than something handed to us by a deity.
Of course they do. This is why it would behoove secularists to better explain their particular morals along these lines. Btw, the two ideas in your last sentence aren't exactly mutually exclusive.
The two ideas in my last sentence are very much mutually exclusive. If morals are handed to us by a deity then they aren't something humans created. Humans can transcribe them as dictated by God but not actually make them up.
My position is that morals have always been created by humans but also have also gotten a "God(s) told me so" from those who wrote them down or passed them on orally. The morals of atheists and deists are coming from the exact same place- the human brain-but the atheists say "this is what I think is right" while the deists say "God said so".
Hume went by the idea that morality is a gut instinct. Some things just feel wrong. I think he was on to something. Som e things just feel wrong. The atheists say "it feels wrong" and the deists say "God said it's wrong". Is "God said so" really a stronger argument than feelings? I suppose to deists it is but to me it just loks like a waaayyyyy external locus of control which can go wrong if the external force slips.
22 Jun 2015, 8:18 pm
Janissy wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either. Their viewpoint doesn't suffice as an answer to the issues of epistemology and existentialism; if they want to hold to their metaphysical, and hence theological, position and at the same time argue for the existence and nature of morality, they cannot so easily separate themselves from nihilists without a valid and compelling argument. "I love" isn't argument enough.
Don't the philosophers ever talk to the anthropologists? The explanation for morality's existence is that we are social and intelligent creatures who need a code both to get along with other humans (the social part) and live in harmony with the world (the intelligent part). The constantly shifting nature of morality over the history of our species illustrates how much it is something humans create on an "as needed" basis rather than something handed to us by a deity.
Of course they do. This is why it would behoove secularists to better explain their particular morals along these lines. Btw, the two ideas in your last sentence aren't exactly mutually exclusive.
The two ideas in my last sentence are very much mutually exclusive. If morals are handed to us by a deity then they aren't something humans created. Humans can transcribe them as dictated by God but not actually make them up.
My position is that morals have always been created by humans but also have also gotten a "God(s) told me so" from those who wrote them down or passed them on orally. The morals of atheists and deists are coming from the exact same place- the human brain-but the atheists say "this is what I think is right" while the deists say "God said so".
Hume went by the idea that morality is a gut instinct. Some things just feel wrong. I think he was on to something. Som e things just feel wrong. The atheists say "it feels wrong" and the deists say "God said it's wrong". Is "God said so" really a stronger argument than feelings? I suppose to deists it is but to me it just loks like a waaayyyyy external locus of control which can go wrong if the external force slips.
The issue with your view that they are mutually exclusive is that there is nothing incompatible about a human both being able to reason moral and that same reason being ingrained by a Creator. This isn't a new idea, see Romans chapter 2, verses 12-15:
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
It's not so much "God says so" as it is "this is the way that God made us".
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
22 Jun 2015, 8:22 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either.
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
22 Jun 2015, 8:27 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
Quote:
“An omnipotent god can create a being whose acts are known only to itself.
An omniscient god cannot do this.
It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.”
― Richard R. LA Croix
An omniscient god cannot do this.
It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.”
― Richard R. LA Croix
The first of the premises isn't valid, ergo the second premise is a false dilemma, so the conclusion does not as a necessity follow from them. He is making a material inference in the first premise but at the same time he is voiding the definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, by it's very nature, presupposes omniscience, as having the ability to do anything entails the ability to know anything as well. Not knowing something would diminish from the completely unfettered agency of an omnipotent being, because if this being has any ability it necessarily follows that this being has any ability to know.
Because something whose acts are known only to itself is not even logically consistent with the existence of an omnipotent being, the second premise is a false dilemma. No such possibility even exists as the very concept of it is a contradiction that voids the meaning of the relevant terms.
Yes, you are right. When I first came across this I thought that omniscience would be a natural consequence of omnipotence, but I wasn't sure, and so I did not raise the issue, but yes - the first premise is invalid, and so the argument collapses.
22 Jun 2015, 8:31 pm
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either.
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
The moral argument is more cannon fodder for the popular sphere anyways. As long as theistic ethics present a sensible front there is little more they can do, and arguing further than that is rarely that compelling. What is found compelling by many today are teleological and historical arguments. And probably the main one gaining ground today, considering how material is published on it, is how well abiogenesis is figuring into teleological argument appealing to the anthropic principle.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
22 Jun 2015, 9:21 pm
Lukecash12 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either. Their viewpoint doesn't suffice as an answer to the issues of epistemology and existentialism; if they want to hold to their metaphysical, and hence theological, position and at the same time argue for the existence and nature of morality, they cannot so easily separate themselves from nihilists without a valid and compelling argument. "I love" isn't argument enough.
Don't the philosophers ever talk to the anthropologists? The explanation for morality's existence is that we are social and intelligent creatures who need a code both to get along with other humans (the social part) and live in harmony with the world (the intelligent part). The constantly shifting nature of morality over the history of our species illustrates how much it is something humans create on an "as needed" basis rather than something handed to us by a deity.
Of course they do. This is why it would behoove secularists to better explain their particular morals along these lines. Btw, the two ideas in your last sentence aren't exactly mutually exclusive. This is where we get into what atheist existentialism would look like. Nietzsche was very pessimistic of an atheist's prospects in this regard.
Is there an evolutionary advantage to eugenics? If so what forms of it are acceptable? Should society be callously utilitarian?
I don't need to explain to the likes of you where my morals and ethics come from. And I would put mine up against yours any day. You need to impugn our morals and integrity to deligitimize atheism, which is merely a non belief in any God. If anyone needs to provide extraordinary evidence, it's deist like you who claim an imaginary being in the sky as a deity. You have some splainin to do...
22 Jun 2015, 9:26 pm
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either.
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
Who the hell do you think you are. Suggesting that we atheists are immoral and unethical is offensive. You created your morals and ethics the same as we did. The only difference is you were ignorant enough to credit your God for them. I suggest you worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone...
22 Jun 2015, 10:20 pm
pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either.
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
Who the hell do you think you are. Suggesting that we atheists are immoral and unethical is offensive. You created your morals and ethics the same as we did. The only difference is you were ignorant enough to credit your God for them. I suggest you worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone...
Pcuser, your reaction to my, perfectly valid, observation I simply do not understand. I can only conclude you are being a jerk here for some reason. I did not - I repeat NOT - say that atheists were, or are, immoral. I said they cannot justify their morality. See the difference? Geez, it's not... I was going to say 'rocket science', but rocket science is really easy, so I'll instead say 'Australian football'.
22 Jun 2015, 10:26 pm
pcuser wrote:
I don't need to explain to the likes of you where my morals and ethics come from. And I would put mine up against yours any day. You need to impugn our morals and integrity to deligitimize atheism, which is merely a non belief in any God. If anyone needs to provide extraordinary evidence, it's deist like you who claim an imaginary being in the sky as a deity. You have some splainin to do...
Pcuser, you DO have to explain where you get your morality from if you also happen to believe, as ALL atheists do, that life is ultimately meaningless, there is no God (or 'god', if you prefer), the material realm is all there is, morality is not absolute but relative, and belief in the supernatural is irrational.
How do you justify a belief in the inherent value of human life (for example) if you also believe we are nothing more than chemicals and electricity? Hmmm? Explain that for me, if you don't mind.
22 Jun 2015, 11:40 pm
pcuser wrote:
I don't need to explain to the likes of you where my morals and ethics come from. And I would put mine up against yours any day. You need to impugn our morals and integrity to deligitimize atheism, which is merely a non belief in any God. If anyone needs to provide extraordinary evidence, it's deist like you who claim an imaginary being in the sky as a deity. You have some splainin to do...
1. I am a theist, not a deist or fideist.
2. We aren't comparing quality of morals or appealing to emotions here. What we are doing is discussing epistemology and existentialism. If you aren't aware of the meaning of either term, that is fine but you clearly don't understand the discussion we're having. Once again, this isn't an insult or defamation of your intelligence.
Quote:
Who the hell do you think you are. Suggesting that we atheists are immoral and unethical is offensive. You created your morals and ethics the same as we did. The only difference is you were ignorant enough to credit your God for them. I suggest you worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone...
"Leave us and our ideas alone" is how the Dark Ages happens. Candid and respectful discussion are conditions that engender progress.
Now a quote from Lintar:
Quote:
Pcuser, you DO have to explain where you get your morality from if you also happen to believe, as ALL atheists do, that life is ultimately meaningless, there is no God (or 'god', if you prefer), the material realm is all there is, morality is not absolute but relative, and belief in the supernatural is irrational.
How do you justify a belief in the inherent value of human life (for example) if you also believe we are nothing more than chemicals and electricity? Hmmm? Explain that for me, if you don't mind.
How do you justify a belief in the inherent value of human life (for example) if you also believe we are nothing more than chemicals and electricity? Hmmm? Explain that for me, if you don't mind.
"All atheists" happens to be a misnomer, my friend. There are atheist sects of Bhuddism, Hinduism (it's called Vedanta philosophy), Taoism, and Confucianism as well as entirely/primarily atheist religions like Laveyan Satanism or animism. The people you are referring to are atheist, empiricist, naturalists as well as atheist postmodernists. Jean Paul Sartre, for example, was an atheist rationalist. His lack of belief in empiricism made his atheist system of morality a perfectly valid model, whether or not it was a true model.
Like I've been saying, this is a matter of epistemology and there are a variety of positions that an atheist can take. The designation "atheist" doesn't instantly necessitate the conclusion that one isn't religious, or that one has to be a naturalist or hard determinist.
_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib
23 Jun 2015, 5:29 am
Lintar wrote:
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
Why would atheists need to justify ethical behaviour? It is the deists (religious people, whatever the proper term is) who are insisting on an external locus of control. There is no atheist equivalent to "God said so" but this presents a philosphical problem only to deists.
The last sentence is telling.
Quote:
Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately doesn't matter?
This is a sentiment that only deists have, that if there isn't an eternal soul and reward or punishment from a deity then it doesn't matter. It does matter. It doesn't matter eternally but it matters right here and now and in the forseeable future.Deists are like children who wonder why Johnny isn't doing bad behaviour X when no grownup is around, After all, if the grownup can't see it, it doesn't matter.
If you can't behave yourself without somebody hovering over you and telling you that you have to, don't try to pin that lack of internal control on me.
23 Jun 2015, 8:19 am
It's 'reAlly simple'.
God comes first.
Human comes way later on.
Then humans attempt to describe
their experience of God through the
abstract constructed tools of human
oral Language, etc.
Eventually, folks
compare notes
and that goes on
here in a myriad of ways.
I take language out of the equation
and go back to the beginning of 'the'
GOD THAT IS ALL NATURAL AND FREE.
God Lives and dies and exists NOW as ALL.
Humans attempt to describe ALL through
various tools, one of which is science,
as a very limited tool to scribe GOD
as science, as the scientific method
cannot adequately measure and
repeat the internal experience
of each unique human that
perceives ALL AKA GOD
uniquely as a non-
repeatable
human experience
that changes every
second over the course
of a full lifetime.
The only thing
that IS
real IS
NOW.
And no one's
NOW is the same;
yet all that difference;
is still in totality a Fractal pArt
of ALL AKA the whole
Interconnected
Interdependent FORCE
that some folks
label
as the
three letter
abstract
concept
label GOD;
BUT ANYWAY,
OMG; GOD LIVES NOW
on the beach and
is the beach
and is the
eyes that
sees the
beach above
so below inside
outside and all
around;
and even my
frigging cat FEELS
this if he ever gets
to the beach; but he
doesn't need to go;
as he doesn't discriminate
against
GOD
or any
three letter
word.
Anyway, GOD will exist
long after all these 'little silly
human words' go totally away;
And as usual those who 'truly
live' AKA 'meek' will continue
to inherit
the
earth;
and 'beyond'.
The Dragon Fly and
the Roach FEEL
ALL the secrets of
existence
in JUST DOIN'
IT NOW and
surviving;
Meanwhile, humans
participate in 'mental
masturbation' while
sitting still; often
suffering in misery
for their own folly
of just forgetting
to Just DO IT.
'GOD IS
NIKE' MORE
OR LESS;
'JUST DOING
IT' ALL
NOW.
TRUST ME,
or not;
IF GOD CAN
'TALK'; GOD WILL
'LAUGH' AT
'HUMANS',
'oveRAll',
'as' a
'heArty laugh'..
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
23 Jun 2015, 9:21 am
Lukecash12 wrote:
Quote:
“An omnipotent god can create a being whose acts are known only to itself.
An omniscient god cannot do this.
It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.”
― Richard R. LA Croix
An omniscient god cannot do this.
It would appear, then, that no god can be both omnipotent and omniscient.”
― Richard R. LA Croix
The first of the premises isn't valid, ergo the second premise is a false dilemma, so the conclusion does not as a necessity follow from them. He is making a material inference in the first premise but at the same time he is voiding the definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, by it's very nature, presupposes omniscience, as having the ability to do anything entails the ability to know anything as well. Not knowing something would diminish from the completely unfettered agency of an omnipotent being, because if this being has any ability it necessarily follows that this being has any ability to know.
Not sure what you mean by "material inference".
Even If I were to grant you that the first premise is not valid, this does not make the second premise a false dilemma; the second premise offers no alternatives to be chosen between. You might mean to say that because (you say) the first premise is false, the whole line of reasoning offers a false dichotomy between omipotence and omniscience, but this is not what you said here.
And if an omnipotent being has "unfettered agency", and omnipotence presupposes omniscience, then riddle me this: has this being the ability to change its mind? With knowledge of the future, it already knows what it is going to do, and so it must be impotent to change course, no?
It seems to me that it is you who are muddying and voiding what terms mean. "Having the ability to know" is not the same as "knowing". I have the ability to know French, because if this ability was not mine, studying French would be pointless. This is not to say that I know French.
And how does omnipotence presuppose omniscience? In my understanding, omnipotence would be "having the power to take any action", and omniscience would be "all-knowing". It's entirely possible to imagine an entity possessing either of these properties without the other being present.
Quote:
Because something whose acts are known only to itself is not even logically consistent with the existence of an omnipotent being, the second premise is a false dilemma. No such possibility even exists as the very concept of it is a contradiction that voids the meaning of the relevant terms.
Only true if I grant that omnipotence necessarily presupposes omniscience, which seems poorly substantiated. And really, all that means is that omnipotence is incoherent all on its own.
_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.
23 Jun 2015, 9:44 am
Lintar wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
They are perfectly capable of love and any theist, fideist, or deist who believes that God or some deity made us this way, would be making a terribly inconsistent statement if they said that atheists don't have that capability. However, that is not what philosophers are arguing at all when they discuss the moral argument. Their argument is that not only does an atheist or agnostic have no epistemological grounds for morality, but they have no explanation for it's existence either.
Exactly. No theist that I know of has ever made the claim that atheists can't be good; what they will say is that if one accepts what atheists generally agree upon and hold to be true (ex. no absolute morality, material realm is all there is and needs to be, and so on), then they cannot justify ethical behaviour. After all, people are just the end results of a very long and improbable sequence of accidents, electro-chemistry that is unusually complex but meaningless and pointless nevertheless. Why be good if what we do and what we are ultimately don't matter?
Who the hell do you think you are. Suggesting that we atheists are immoral and unethical is offensive. You created your morals and ethics the same as we did. The only difference is you were ignorant enough to credit your God for them. I suggest you worry about your own life and leave the rest of us alone...
Pcuser, your reaction to my, perfectly valid, observation I simply do not understand. I can only conclude you are being a jerk here for some reason. I did not - I repeat NOT - say that atheists were, or are, immoral. I said they cannot justify their morality. See the difference? Geez, it's not... I was going to say 'rocket science', but rocket science is really easy, so I'll instead say 'Australian football'.
How is it we must 'justify' our morals to anybody. That seems to me an attack on our morals. If I insisted you must justify yourself to me about anything, that is insulting...
23 Jun 2015, 4:51 pm
Lintar wrote: "How do you justify a belief in the inherent value of human life (for example) if you also believe we are nothing more than chemicals and electricity? Hmmm? Explain that for me, if you don't mind."
I believe the chemicals and electricity are just part of it. Human life also has feelings. We don't want them to suffer.
_________________
Impermanence.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| If these things didn't exist then I wouldn't be missing out |
14 Mar 2024, 1:01 pm |
| My mom doesn't get it! |
04 Apr 2024, 5:20 am |
| Socializing - What works and doesn't |
Yesterday, 6:35 pm |
| Doesn't Anybody F**k Any More? — Reddit edition |
17 Apr 2024, 2:54 pm |
