Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,526 comments
  • 1,426,236 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 626 30.5%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 17.9%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,059 51.6%

  • Total voters
    2,052
So, what do you want me to do?

Please reread everything that has been said to you. Everything you have stated has been countered with posts that actually make sense, give proof and evidence. Yours don't. All you do is tell us your opinion about god and religion.
 
I understand why you would think this.
So therefore, morality is subjective? Even if morality is subjective, it does not mean that being atheist you cannot hold a good moral life. I'm sure that we all agree that sentient life should be protected and given value, but if a deity as I have described above is non-existent then this is not a fact, it is a subjective belief.

So I conclude:

If God does not exist, then morality is subjective.

If God does not exist, then human life holds no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose.

Are we clear?

I see where you're coming from, but I don't believe human life has any ultimate meaning, value or purpose.
What we do have, however, are our own meanings, values and purposes towards each other. If we don't have to answer to God, we still have to answer to each other.

The deity you describe appears to be just as subjective.
 
Famine
In this case an objective base and logical progression.

Care to offer logical progression to get from "objective rights" to "value of life"? Care to enumerate that value?

Read the Human Rights thread so you can understand that rights are objective without the need for a mythical creator. I've only said it twice.

You can if you like. But then proof denies faith - if you can prove the existence of a god you have no reason to believe in one any more.

The. Human. Rights. Thread.

If you wish to establish objective principles you must use objectivity.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPQjdOopTWc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Again, human rights presume that objective moral values and duties exist, but in order for objective moral values an duties to exist, mankind must first have objective meaning/value. It is generally accepted that if there is no God, everything is relative. Take God out of the picture, then all you are left is an apelike creature on a speck of solar dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur. If we, along with the universe are not created for an objective reason, and is doomed to an ultimate heat-death, then objective morality is absurd. I really feel like I am repeating myself here. If any objective moral duties and values can be found, then I can only conclude that they have a perfect source.

And I have never claimed to prove God, I only believe that I have good reasons to believe in his existence.

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. (Rom: 2:14-15 NLT)
 
It is generally accepted that if there is no God, everything is relative.

No matter how many times you say it, doesn't make it any more true.

Let me reiterate. Different religions give different values on the "right to life". In other words, many of these "God-Given" moral rules tell us that it is okay to take a human life if God says so.


Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. (Rom: 2:14-15 NLT)

Surely not the Gentiles who eat pork, who work on the Sabbath, who worship idols and who perform human sacrifices? Have you ever lived in a non-Christian environment? There are people for whom the killing of non-believers not only brings no feelings of guilt, it brings feelings of spiritual fulfillment.

This has been debunked so many times, it's getting monotonous.

-----

At least bring some new arguments to the table. That one about Darwin and the bit where "if we were hive creatures like bees" is interesting... well, then obviously, human life would not have the same value, because we would not be human beings with individual identities. For hive creatures, the individual organism is not an indiividual entity, so the life of an individual organism doesn't hold the same value as the life of a completely independent entity.

But there's nothing subjective about it. An individual organism in such a species is not an individual, sentient being (except perhaps the hive-mother), and objectively, does not possess the same rights as a human who is a sapient being.

-----

Who says morality is subjective without God? (you do, obviously... but who else?) Objectively, as humans, our morality is concerned with the survival of humans. Period. If we were Dolphins, our morality would be concerned with the survival of Dolphins.

The only difference between objective rationalist morality and most religious morality is that we view people of other religions as deserving of the same consideration as people of our own religion/non-religion.

Like Famine says, read the Human Rights thread if you want to tackle this. Because you're doing it very badly.
 
TankAss95
Again, human rights presume that objective moral values and duties exist, but in order for objective moral values an duties to exist, mankind must first have objective meaning/value. It is generally accepted that if there is no God, everything is relative. Take God out of the picture, then all you are left is an apelike creature on a speck of solar dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur. If we, along with the universe are not created for an objective reason, and is doomed to an ultimate heat-death, then objective morality is absurd. I really feel like I am repeating myself here. If any objective moral duties and values can be found, then I can only conclude that they have a perfect source.

Objective meaning/purpose of human life: to reproduce and promote the survival of our species. This is not subjective. It's backed up by a ton of evidence, namely that every other species on this planet displays behavior obviously geared towards this same goal. This survival instinct can be completely explained by evolution - any species that didn't have it would die out. There - an objective purpose for our existence that doesn't require god.

Now, I've already explained how from this one natural survival instinct, an intelligent species such as ourselves would logically develop a code of morality. Because the entire resulting system of morality is founded upon the objective survival instinct in all creatures, we have found a suitable alternative to god in this question. You just don't like the answer.
 
If #2 is correct, then morality is subjective...
There are various ways different species act. Some are maternal based and some are paternal. Some are peaceful, some are violent. Morality is subjective, so that's the end of that. :)
Without objective meaning, purpose and value, life is worthless. With atheism, there is no objective meaning, purpose or value, thus life is pointless and whatever significance we give ourselves are nothing but illusionary.
How does this illusion differ from your illusion? Faith is an illusion after all. Who is to say I don't have an objective meaning? Feel free to answer that, it doesn't have to be rhetorical.
Yep, we are all going to die, and with atheism there is no hope - not only for us, but for the human race. Think about the second law of thermodynamics, eventually the universe will be a cold, static, lifeless place. As I have said above, given that we are all mortal and lack significance, meaning or purpose, morality becomes subjective.
Okay, with that said; what happens to God in this universe? Nothing exists, after the "end". That means God too since he is in our universe. That would make him mortal, correct?
It's great that you have been happier as you've learned more about science etc, but what if I could show you why God almost certainly exists...
Let's start with God... horse before the cart. I don't want to be shown that God "almost certainly exists". I want to know that he exists, to be shown it. Period. Can you do that?
The point is, I'm supporting my claims with logic, and you are not explaining why I am wrong.
Yes, you are trying to be logical, but support for claims with logic are hypotheses(or guess if you want to be less scientific). Supporting claims with evidence creates fact. You're not being tried for being wrong, as we cannot test your hypotheses, or find the truth to your statements. However, you haven't provided us any evidence to test them. You haven't supported yourself enough to be right (if you're looking to 'not be wrong'). You, or anyone, can't make a hypothesis without expecting it to be tested. If you want someone to believe what you believe, you need to show them. Not tell them. All we've seen so far is talk.
 
Well, in my opinion sortive. I mean, look at the lady who layed on top of her two kids and a tornado came and destroyed her house. Not to mention that she lost bot of her legs. But some of the good stuff that happened.... Anyway my opinion is yes,but why he does what he does is weird to me sometimes. But this a question that I wouldn't ask because there is people out there who whine and complain about every little thing.
(can't think of any "good" stuff at the moment)
 
Check out this video on YouTube

No. Use your own words. Someone else's video that you think speaks to you is not sufficient replacement for a reasoned argument.

Again, human rights presume that objective moral values and duties exist, but in order for objective moral values an duties to exist, mankind must first have objective meaning/value.

No, this is a statement. You haven't demonstrated your conclusion (mankind must have objective meaning/value) from your premise (objective moral values exist). Use reasoning to establish this.

It is generally accepted that if there is no God, everything is relative.

By whom? Why? Does the existence of God preclude relativity? If so, demonstrate this with logic and reasoning - if not, why is it relevant?

Take God out of the picture, then all you are left is an apelike creature on a speck of solar dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.

Are you? Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning.

If we, along with the universe are not created for an objective reason, and is doomed to an ultimate heat-death, then objective morality is absurd.

Is it? Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning.

Why must "creation" have a reason? What better constitutes an objective reason than "because"? What is less suitable for an objective reason than "the whim of an infinitely powerful deity"?


I really feel like I am repeating myself here.

You are. That's the problem. You keep restating the same points over and over again without at any point showing how or why you go from "this premise" to "this conclusion". It seems to be enough for you to just say "if this, then that" without any of the steps in-between and without demonstrating at any point why it's logical to conclude as you do.

Perhaps when you stop repeating yourself as if you have passages memorised and start thinking how you go from "we have objective rights" to "because God".


If any objective moral duties and values can be found, then I can only conclude that they have a perfect source.

Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning. Define "a perfect source". Demonstrate with logic and reasoning what this "perfect source" is and why it is objective and begets objectivity.

And I have never claimed to prove God, I only believe that I have good reasons to believe in his existence.

Smashing. Believing in the existence of a deity is completely unconnected to giving arguments for the existence of a deity. The former is subjective, the latter is not. You asked if you should give alternative arguments for the existence of a deity, not show that you believe in one - we know you do and it's not really relevant to where it does or not.

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. (Rom: 2:14-15 NLT)

Yes. Let us all quote from series-translated, subjectively anthologised works of dubious veracity. That'll help.
 
Real fast side note about some of the really recent posts.... first thought that comes to my mind as someone said something about "our primal insticts...." etc is that it's so so true. Once some of those beliefs in god take root, it's as if those people absolutely forget that we do have primal instincts. That we really are creatures like all others on this planet. Sure, quite a bit more advanced with language, reason, etc, but we are still mamals with deep insticts. Why does a male lion kill foreign prides male cubs....instincts. It's not an evil creature...it's doing what is instinct and a survival of the fitist act. Yes, we have primal insticts believe it or not. Sure, so many are far removed, but they are still there. No expert OBVIOUSLY, but I would think, look into that, and ye shall find some good info on why the majority of us know it's not right to kill other humans. Anyway....


I was thinking about this topic of resurrection, and since it was recently brought up a page or so ago as “fact”, I can't help but give my opinion on the matter. In this day and age, with as far as we have come in so many areas of thought and science and exploration and AWAKENING, am I being trolled, or can people really believe in resurrections? I just can't imagine that being something someone could believe today and take serious. I totally see how they did back in the day. I mean in the Catholic church, they used to hound on how bad masturbation was. Bad bad sin guilt guilt. Ever wonder where that came from??? Originally, they thought man only had only so much sperm, so by wasting it, it would limit their ability to reproduce. No joke. Not their fault...you could say it was a good guess back then from something they had no scientific idea about how things really worked. No sex-ed, no planned parenthood, no checking testosterone levels....just a blanket statement to cover the bases of the unknown. Don't do it! Now, that concept and teaching was carried on way after we knew the facts. They just slowly shifted it and it became a huge guilt factor for men and women. So I can see how they bought it back then, but now???? Ghosts and many other supernatural beliefs were common day practice.
I don't know,…… it just seems like the same kind of person perhaps watches the shows on tv about ghosts and actually thinks it's real. A world where exorcisms are true. Or that the awesome magic trick they saw in vegas was real. I can only speak for myself, but if I was to start all over again and someone shared with me about Christianity for the first time....I'm absolutely sure they would lose me when they started talking about parting seas, and burning bushes, and water into wine, and I would ask "are you f-ing with me" when they brought up resurrection. Any other circumstance on the internet where something like this was talked about with such belief would be totally passed off as "oh, they are just trolling". It would be the same silly PSTSSSS and snicker my mom would give a Mormon if they started sharing with her about the Mormon idea of the afterlife. “Oh, no….that can’t possibly be the way it is” she would confidently say as a Christian, and go on to talk about how, instead, it’s about her religion’s dude dying and then being resurrected, how he is the father, son and on top of all that, a holy ghost, etc etc……and THAT is supposed to be the one that isn’t snickered at??? LOL Wow, yeah, burning bushes, resurrections and are way more believable than Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial kingdoms. What was I thinking?
I often wonder if instead of church type theology teachings and the like, someone created a church session deal and provided the other components people liked (music, companionship, a place to share about life’s difficulties/struggles and joys/amazements, connections, networking, mates, lovers, just good company and human closeness) all wrapped up with a wonderfully gifted speaker, that passed down meaningful life lessons, that have been known and are tried and true for centuries, that perk you up and get you ready for another tuff week.........wouldn’t that be just as grand?? Seriously, I’ve imagined say a really popular Calvary style church here in Colorado, take out the message of god, and everything that is associated with that, but leave everything else, people would still dig it. I mean as an atheist even, market that up correctly and you would have yourself something there I think.
If Ithink back to my church days, the best part for me was the friends and socialization, and second favorite was the message that some of the sermons taught. Seriously. If you take the idea of a supreme being out of the picture, so many of the sermons would have just as crucial meaning and value to people as a source of morals. Say for instance, the one about: “take the plank out of your eye, before telling me to remove the splinter in mine”. We all can see the value and point to that message. Any reason it has to be based on God? I don’t claim to know the history of that message, but you can be sure it was a thought that’s been on this planet as long as we have been dealing with other humans.
I completely can understand the feeling of being part of a community, family, and perhaps place of support that so many people desire and indeed find in church. I’d guess it’s something we may innately need as humans. I’d also suppose that way back in the day, we had more of this naturally just based on simple-ness of societies. Today, our world, to me at least, seems like it’s just a little out of control in so many areas. No surprise to me people are finding what they are looking for in the extremely warm setting of churches. Change the name, one huge underpinning, and…..wouldn’t people still go? I wonder.
From my experience in the church’s I’ve been a member of, due to the failure rate of any religious dictates in daily lives, about 90% of the reason people go to church is for the above reasons. Being human coming together, and doing the best we can to co-exists. In other words, all the stuff that falls under the religious/god category is easily the part that people fail at. Don’t do these things, they are sins. Next week, find that most couldn’t last 6 days without doing those “bad” things. (which aren’t really bad, just bad to their particular belief doctrine.) Hence heavy guilt, shame, etc etc.
And I know myself for one, would not even care how wealthy the accounting books got because it’s a great service to the masses. A sort of counseling, helping hand, fun place to go. Events and meetings all throughout the week for many interests and whatnot. However, when they call it tithes and offerings, and say god commands the 10% or whatever, I can’t help but get annoyed at the richness of some churches. Snake oil. If I ever did believe in a god, the words money and god would never even be in the same ball park.
But enough of my blithering and annoying people. Again, as an end point, I mean no offence, just sharing my counter arguments to statements made from the other side. Thank you and good day.
 
Famine
No. Use your own words. Someone else's video that you think speaks to you is not sufficient replacement for a reasoned argument.
Okay.

Science cannot attain moral and ethical truths. Science cannot say what you've 'ought to do, science says what is. Science is silent when it comes to morality.
So what is objective moral duties and values? These are truths which are independent from human thought. Hydrogen is hydrogen, whether we like it or not. Hydrogen is an object. Whatever fantastic description you can give of human life, if we hold no objective purpose/value/meaning then we are merely an assemble of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, a little calcium, a dash of sulphur, a light dusting of other very order elements put together by a chaotic universe whom nether listens nor cares.

So how can we derive objective moral values/duties from non-significance? You've said human rights, but the thing is these are not independent of human thought, these are a collection of subjective terms and conditions that we have put together as a foundation of what we own to be human. I can't see how we can class this as objective.

Why do we need God to have objective moral values and duties? Because God does give us a purpose, value and meaning. Simple as that. Any objective moral truths we hold must come from an ultimate source - otherwise they would be subjective.

Famine
No, this is a statement. You haven't demonstrated your conclusion (mankind must have objective meaning/value) from your premise (objective moral values exist). Use reasoning to establish this.

I hope I have. Humanity isn't a singular, collective thought.

Famine
By whom? Why? Does the existence of God preclude relativity? If so, demonstrate this with logic and reasoning - if not, why is it relevant?

I think so. If a deity made us he must have made us for a purpose - for better or for worse. Anything created by an ultimate source isn't relative to everything else.

Famine
Are you? Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning.

Is it? Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning.

Perhaps you could explain why objective moral values/duties do not need to come from an ultimate source like as I have said above, and is inalienable from human thought/existence. It's simple logic - if we assign ourselves to rights with no objective purpose/meaning/significance, then surely the outcome would be objective.

Famine
Why must "creation" have a reason? What better constitutes an objective reason than "because"? What is less suitable for an objective reason than "the whim of an infinitely powerful deity"?

Would you like me to move on to some other arguments for the existence of God? I was just stating my argument as to why objective moral values/duties and non-God can not coexist. If you could explain a leap from an is to an 'ought then my argument would break down, but every attempt seems subjective and not objective.

Famine
You are. That's the problem. You keep restating the same points over and over again without at any point showing how or why you go from "this premise" to "this conclusion". It seems to be enough for you to just say "if this, then that" without any of the steps in-between and without demonstrating at any point why it's logical to conclude as you do.

Quite simply, I believe objective moral values/duties exist. I have explained why I don't think they can come from anything else rather than an ultimate source.

Famine
Perhaps when you stop repeating yourself as if you have passages memorised and start thinking how you go from "we have objective rights" to "because God".

Would you like me to explain why objective moral duties/values?

Famine
Why? Demonstrate this with logic and reasoning. Define "a perfect source". Demonstrate with logic and reasoning what this "perfect source" is and why it is objective and begets objectivity.

Ultimate reality. Again if God is the ultimate reality that has given us significance, value and a goal to reach for, then this would be an objective truth. Would you like me to show you why I believe God is real other than this argument?

Famine
Smashing. Believing in the existence of a deity is completely unconnected to giving arguments for the existence of a deity. The former is subjective, the latter is not. You asked if you should give alternative arguments for the existence of a deity, not show that you believe in one - we know you do and it's not really relevant to where it does or not.

If I can give good reasons to why I believe what I believe, then it is still faith. I can't prove God or Christianity, but I can explain why I think it is more than likely correct. Again, reflect to the existence of other conscious minds out her that your own. You can't prove that there are other conscious minds out there, but I presume you believe so because there are good reasons to hold to that belief.

Famine
Yes. Let us all quote from series-translated, subjectively anthologised works of dubious veracity. That'll help.

I can't really talk about Biblical Inerrancy because I really don't know enough about it. Thanks.
 
Why do we need God to have objective moral values and duties? Because God does give us a purpose, value and meaning. Simple as that. Any objective moral truths we hold must come from an ultimate source - otherwise they would be subjective.

Why is God special? Any person can come up with purpose, value, and meaning. All God did was supposedly make everything. If morality needed God to exist, then it's not objective in the sense that you are claiming it is. If it was, then objective morality would exist without God. God merely said what he thought was right and wrong, and its only because he made that decision that right and wrong exist, according to you. In other words, he's no different from a human with a head full of "illusions".

You say an ultimate source is not relative to anything. It's relative to the ultimate source not existing.
 
Exorcet
Why is God special?

Because he is unique.

Exorcet
Any person can come up with purpose, value, and meaning.

I could say that my purpose is to be a racing driver, I am infinitely valuable, and have meaning in my own being, but that does not make these statements objective, no matter how much I would wish them to be. These are merely subjective opinions.

Exorcet
All God did was supposedly make everything.

I like how you seem to describe God as being insignificant here. If God does exist as in the way I've described him as being, then he is the ultimate reality, who made and sustains the universe!

Exorcet
If morality needed God to exist, then it's not objective in the sense that you are claiming it is.

Morality could exist without God, sure, but morality would be subjective, not objective. I believe objective morality does exist (independent from human opinion) so then I think God must exist (a law-giver). It's a simple argument, and I've explained it over and over.
Now do you think morality is subjective or objective? Morality can't be 'nearly objective' because then it would be subjective. Simple.

Exorcet
If it was, then objective morality would exist without God. God merely said what he thought was right and wrong, and its only because he made that decision that right and wrong exist, according to you. In other words, he's no different from a human with a head full of "illusions".

God didn't say what he thought was right and wrong, God knew what is right because part of his necessary nature is perfection. God is the grounding foundation of our conscious morality.

Exorcet
You say an ultimate source is not relative to anything. It's relative to the ultimate source not existing.

Self contradictory. An ultimate source is relative to existence, or itself, because it is necessary of its own nature.

For example many atheists say that nature is infinite (it never began), but then nature would be necessary in itself.
 
Science cannot attain moral and ethical truths.

Why not?

If science is the knowledge of objectivity and the truth is objective (or human rights are), it would appear that the very same process is applicable.


So what is objective moral duties and values? These are truths which are independent from human thought.

The single truest thing you've said in this thread to date.

Hydrogen is hydrogen, whether we like it or not. Hydrogen is an object. Whatever fantastic description you can give of human life, if we hold no objective purpose/value/meaning then we are merely an assemble of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, a little calcium, a dash of sulphur, a light dusting of other very order elements put together by a chaotic universe whom nether listens nor cares.

That is somewhat of an overreach, however the word "chaotic" is one to hold on to.

I'd like to introduce you to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. It states that for any individual particle you cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum (magnitude of speed and direction of travel). Moreover, the more precisely you are able to fix one value, the less precisely you are able to determine the other. There are a variety of fascinating reasons for this involving quantum physics and the act of observation change what you observe, but it has two quite major outcomes.

The first is that if you were able to fix both the position and momentum of a particle, you would be able to track that particle through the universe indefinitely. The second is that if you were able to do that, you would acquire information on the position and momentum of all particles that interact with it simultaneously - which would mean that you would know where all particles are and where they are going (and where they have been) throughout the universe for the entirety of time. This would be omniscience.

I referred to Chaos Theory earlier. Chaos is essentially on offshoot of this notion - all particles in the universe interact with each other, either directly or through intermediary particles (an indefinite number) or forces, thus a moth flapping its wings in China can affect the course of a North Atlantic hurricane.

Where's this taking us? You said the universe is chaotic and neither listens to nor cares about an assemblage of leptons and emptiness (let's simplify your elements). In fact the universe is chaotic and for this reason both listens to and cares about every lepton within it - because every particle in the universe interacts with every other particle.

Sure, it's not an entity that listens to you laying yourself down to sleep and gives you success in your ball game tomorrow, but hey, entities are overrated.


So how can we derive objective moral values/duties from non-significance? You've said human rights, but the thing is these are not independent of human thought, these are a collection of subjective terms and conditions that we have put together as a foundation of what we own to be human. I can't see how we can class this as objective.

You're half right here. Of course had you actually read the Human Rights thread like you have been asked to five times, you wouldn't be half wrong too.

Most codified human rights are nothing of the sort. They're hopes, wishes, ambitions and contradictory. Real human rights are objective and independent of both law and thought.


Why do we need God to have objective moral values and duties? Because God does give us a purpose, value and meaning. Simple as that.

That doesn't necessarily follow. For a start - and it's a bit of a kicker - your God only gives a purpose, value or meaning to those who believe in him in the first place and don't partake of certain lifestyles. It's quite telling that these lifestyles aren't against human rights, but are against the very, very subjective rules set out in the series-translated, subjectively anthologised works of dubious veracity of which I spoke earlier.

If it doesn't apply to everyone, it's not objective.


Any objective moral truths we hold must come from an ultimate source - otherwise they would be subjective.

If the source is biased any "moral truths" that come from it are also subjective. Point origin does not beget objectivity.

I hope I have. Humanity isn't a singular, collective thought.

Irrelevant - objectivity is independent of the thinker.

I think so. If a deity made us he must have made us for a purpose - for better or for worse.

Why? Use logic and reasoning to establish this.

Anything created by an ultimate source isn't relative to everything else.

Why? Use logic and reasoning to establish this.

Perhaps you could explain why objective moral values/duties do not need to come from an ultimate source like as I have said above, and is inalienable from human thought/existence.

"The Human Rights Thread".

Would it help if I experimented with a variety of font types or recorded myself singing it?


It's simple logic - if we assign ourselves to rights with no objective purpose/meaning/significance, then surely the outcome would be objective.

I'll assume that you mean "wouldn't", otherwise that makes no sense in the context of your... reasoning.

However, you've made a couple of logical leaps here. The first is that "we assign ourselves rights" - despite being told that they're independent of the thinker and objective. The second is that you're requiring an outcome.


Would you like me to move on to some other arguments for the existence of God?

Famine
You can if you like. But then proof denies faith - if you can prove the existence of a god you have no reason to believe in one any more.

I was just stating my argument as to why objective moral values/duties and non-God can not coexist.

No, you've just stated that it IS your argument. There's no attempt at explaining why.

If you could explain a leap from an is to an 'ought then my argument would break down, but every attempt seems subjective and not objective.

In the key of F#, everyone!

# The Human Rights Thread! The Human Rights Thread! The Human Rights Thread! The Human Rights Threeeeeeeeeeeee-ad! #


Quite simply, I believe objective moral values/duties exist.

Yes. We know. You haven't showed any inclination towards showing why. Luckily we atheists have showed you why in... oh yes, you guessed it... The Human Rights Thread! And we did so with logic and without invoking any whimsical deities.

I have explained why I don't think they can come from anything else rather than an ultimate source.

No, you've explained that you think that, not why.

I keep asking you to demonstrate your arguments with logic and reasoning. You keep restating them bereft of either.


Would you like me to explain why objective moral duties/values?

I'd love for you to, for once, explain why anything.

It seems enough for you to believe a statement and state it. That's not objective.


Ultimate reality.

As opposed to?

Again if God is the ultimate reality that has given us significance, value and a goal to reach for, then this would be an objective truth.

Except for anyone who doesn't agree with it. That's not objectivity.

Would you like me to show you why I believe God is real other than this argument?

No, because it's irrelevant. Belief is subjective, proof is objective. Believing God is real has no bearing on reality. Proving God is real does - and immediately requires the absence of belief.

If I can give good reasons to why I believe what I believe, then it is still faith.

You can no longer believe in something that has sufficient proof to be real.

I can't prove God or Christianity, but I can explain why I think it is more than likely correct.

Which is irrelevant.

Again, reflect to the existence of other conscious minds out her that your own. You can't prove that there are other conscious minds out there, but I presume you believe so because there are good reasons to hold to that belief.

Why would I believe that? Or in fact anything?

TankAss95
Morality could exist without God, sure, but morality would be subjective, not objective.

Why? Demonstrate with logic and reasoning.

I believe objective morality does exist (independent from human opinion) so then I think God must exist (a law-giver).

What you believe is irrelevant - as it requires you to believe it, making it dependant on the thinker and subjective. Your premise (objective reality exists) is not logically connected with your conclusion (God exists) because you have made no attempt to demonstrate it with logic and reason despite being invited to do exactly that several times.

Do that and you have the basis for discussion. Stating your opinion, saying you believe it (subjectively) and then repeating it is not the basis for discussion - as it is bereft of logic, reason and objectivity.


It's a simple argument, and I've explained it over and over.

No, you've stated it over and over. Quite a significant difference.
 
Because he is unique.
So is every individual.



I could say that my purpose is to be a racing driver, I am infinitely valuable, and have meaning in my own being, but that does not make these statements objective, no matter how much I would wish them to be. These are merely subjective opinions.
But God saying what is right and wrong is no different really, unless of course objective morality could exist without him.



I like how you seem to describe God as being insignificant here. If God does exist as in the way I've described him as being, then he is the ultimate reality, who made and sustains the universe!
His role as a creator is what is insignificant in this argument. He made everything, lets assume that. Why does that make him a moral authority?



Morality could exist without God, sure, but morality would be subjective, not objective. I believe objective morality does exist (independent from human opinion) so then I think God must exist (a law-giver). It's a simple argument, and I've explained it over and over.
Now do you think morality is subjective or objective? Morality can't be 'nearly objective' because then it would be subjective. Simple.

But God does not necessarily imply objective morals. Humans having a built in reluctance to harm one another would not be opinion, and it does not require God.

As for morals themselves, they are subjective since they vary with culture and time, however as huske pointed out, there is an objective base for morals that came out of human development.


God didn't say what he thought was right and wrong, God knew what is right because part of his necessary nature is perfection. God is the grounding foundation of our conscious morality.
This implies that morals come before God. For God to know, and not create, morality must be independent of God.

Self contradictory. An ultimate source is relative to existence, or itself, because it is necessary of its own nature.

For example many atheists say that nature is infinite (it never began), but then nature would be necessary in itself.
It's not contradictory. Being infinite doesn't make something inevitable. Existing is what makes something inevitable. Also, the whole thing on a universe/nature without a beginning is that if God can do it, so can nature.
 
@ Famine:

Objective moral duties/values cannot exist if (x) has no objective meaning/value/purpose.

Famine
You haven't demonstrated your conclusion (mankind must have objective meaning/value) from your premise (objective moral values exist). Use reasoning to establish this.

I've got to wonder what it is you hope to achieve by repeating the same things with the same mistakes over and over again.

And by not reading the Human Rights thread.
 
Exorcet
So is every individual.
True, but what is different is that God is infinitely different from everything else.
Exorcet
But God saying what is right and wrong is no different really, unless of course objective morality could exist without him.
I don't really understand. If God is just, then his morality would be just.
Exorcet
His role as a creator is what is insignificant in this argument. He made everything, lets assume that. Why does that make him a moral authority?
Yes because he made beings that could act according to his perfect justice. If he is not concerned with our being (like a deist God) then morality would be subjective. I can hear Famine screaming "#HUMAN RIGHTS" right now, but I explained to him why I don't think that Human Rights would not be justified given that we have no objective meaning/value/purpose.
Exorcet
But God does not necessarily imply objective morals. Humans having a built in reluctance to harm one another would not be opinion, and it does not require God.
Then morality would be subjective to evolutionary trends.
Exorcet
As for morals themselves, they are subjective since they vary with culture and time, however as huske pointed out, there is an objective base for morals that came out of human development.
Remember Micro evolution v Macro evolution? :sly:
Exorcet
This implies that morals come before God. For God to know, and not create, morality must be independent of God.
If God wanted us to follow an absolute goal in life then he would make morals to accompaniment the objective goal, all while being totally just. For example if someone murdered another person, then that may invalidate God's plan for that person, thus it is wrong.
Exorcet
It's not contradictory. Being infinite doesn't make something inevitable. Existing is what makes something inevitable. Also, the whole thing on a universe/nature without a beginning is that if God can do it, so can nature.
An infinite past is impossible, since it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present.
 
I can hear Famine screaming "#HUMAN RIGHTS" right now, but I explained to him why I don't think that Human Rights would not be justified given that we have no objective meaning/value/purpose.

No, you've just explained that you think that.

Go read the Human Rights thread. Is that ten or eleven times now?
 
Now I'm sure it's trolling. There is just NO WAY this kind of thinking and mental processing error can exist today. You guys totally had me though. Good one!!
 
Exorcet
So is every individual.

But God saying what is right and wrong is no different really, unless of course objective morality could exist without him.

His role as a creator is what is insignificant in this argument. He made everything, lets assume that. Why does that make him a moral authority?

But God does not necessarily imply objective morals. Humans having a built in reluctance to harm one another would not be opinion, and it does not require God.

As for morals themselves, they are subjective since they vary with culture and time, however as huske pointed out, there is an objective base for morals that came out of human development.

This implies that morals come before God. For God to know, and not create, morality must be independent of God.

It's not contradictory. Being infinite doesn't make something inevitable. Existing is what makes something inevitable. Also, the whole thing on a universe/nature without a beginning is that if God can do it, so can nature.

Because he created everything.....:lol: how could that not make him a moral authority?
 
True, but what is different is that God is infinitely different from everything else.
Different isn't a number. It's a yes/no.

I don't really understand. If God is just, then his morality would be just.
And if God is just, the concept of justice can exist without God. God can't make a right decision unless a right decision exists.

Yes because he made beings that could act according to his perfect justice. If he is not concerned with our being (like a deist God) then morality would be subjective. I can hear Famine screaming "#HUMAN RIGHTS" right now, but I explained to him why I don't think that Human Rights would not be justified given that we have no objective meaning/value/purpose.
This isn't really related to what I was saying.



Remember Micro evolution v Macro evolution?
Yes, I remember that they are the exact same thing.

If God wanted us to follow an absolute goal in life then he would make morals to accompaniment the objective goal, all while being totally just. For example if someone murdered another person, then that may invalidate God's plan for that person, thus it is wrong.
Then the morals are merely based on God's subjective goal, which could be anything. If God wanted everyone to fight to the death for his amusement, it would not be just for people to end wars.

An infinite past is impossible, since it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present.
Which applies to God as much as it applies to anything else. And if God is outside of time? Then nature can be as well.

Because he created everything.....:lol: how could that not make him a moral authority?
So if someone has kids, they can kill them if they wish? Or lock them in a coffin and throw them in a lake while they are still alive?

Creating everything has absolutely no relation to morality.
 
Famine
No, you've just explained that you think that.

Go read the Human Rights thread. Is that ten or eleven times now?

I give up. :sly:

So, human Rights are independent of human opinion, and objective moral duties/values do not need God to exist?

OK. I'll take a closer look at this, but for the meantime, time for another argument! :sly: :dunce:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

1: Something can't come from nothing. The claim that something came into being from nothing is worse than magic! In order to deny this premise, you have to think that the whole universe came into being at some point in the past out of nothing, but does anyone sincerely believe this? Plus, if something can come into being from nothing, then why doesn't anything or everything else spontaneously come into being too? Why don't bicycles and Beethoven and beer just pop in and out of existence I'll the time?!
But what about God? Does he need a cause? Well things don't need a cause if they never begin to exist, simple as that. Something eternal wouldn't need a cause, since it never came into being.
Another point: Common experience and scientific evidence confirms the truth of the first premise. Premise 1 is constantly verified and never falsified.

2: This is the most controversial premise of this argument - why isn't the universe just infinite? Well first an infinite amount of things cannot exist. A man called Al Ghazali argued that an infinite number of things cannot exist. Now, this needs to be properly understood, a potential infinity can exist, but an actual infinity can't. What's the difference? Well when we mean that something is potentially infinite, it means that the infinity serves merely as an ideal limit that is never reached. For example, you could divide any finite distance in half, and then into fourths, and then into eights, and then into sixteenths, and so on to infinity (this has been mentioned in the philosophy theory thread, thanks for bringing it up whoever it was 👍 ). The number of divisions is potentially infinite, but you'll never actually arrive at an "infinitieth" division. You'd never actually have an infinite number of parts or divisions - infinity is an endless goal.
So we don't really have a problem with the existence of potential infinites - for these are just ideal limits. But when we come to an actual infinite, we are dealing with a collection that is not growing toward infinity as a limit but is already complete: The number of members already in the collection is greater than any finite number. If actual infinites exist, then a number of absurdities would result.
So basically an infinite past is implausible, because it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the present tense (according to my useless mathematical skills :P ).
But it's not just philosophy, all scientific evidence points towards an absolute beginning.

3. As I have explained above, we can now conclude that the universe has a cause. It is rational to believe that because of the two premises explained above, the universe has transcendent cause beyond the universe. Why is this so (Famine will keep asking me to explain properly, :lol: I hope I am doing ok. :nervous: )? Because we've seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. We are therefore confronted with the uncaused, first cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, science it created all matter and energy.

His may be an obvious argument for God, but I really think its a solid, airtight argument. Thinking of origins I always came to the conclusion of God in the past, I hope I have explained why. Please share any criticisms and I will be happy to try and answer them (better this time) and further the discussion in this interesting debate.
 
Thinking of origins I always came to the conclusion of God in the past

And that doesn't mean God is the only answer, so even if we follow your argument all the way through we come to this conclusion:

Something (and we have no idea what it is) caused the universe to come into existence.

Anything after that, based on your argument, is a guess. So I could say that it was vibrating strings with no issues.
 
@Tankass, no. You can't dictate the course of a discussion by giving up and moving on to something else. Either admit that your argument about human rights and morality is wrong, or go read the Human Rights thread and support your argument with logic.

I'd love to jump into a discussion about the origin of the universe, but I can't in good conscience do so until you finish this discussion with Famine. So do that, and then we can move on to something else.
 
Exorcet
And that doesn't mean God is the only answer, so even if we follow your argument all the way through we come to this conclusion:

Something (and we have no idea what it is) caused the universe to come into existence.

Anything after that, based on your argument, is a guess. So I could say that it was vibrating strings with no issues.

Your missing the point. If vibrating strings have been vibrating for an eternal past, then it would require an actual infinite, which as I've described is absurd/impossible.
Although slightly unrelated to your point, the multiverse theory also requires a beginning according to the model brought forward by Arvind Borde, Anan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Yep, we are talking about a ex-nihilo. We are talking about an absolute a beginning here... Pretty amazing stuff.
 
1: Something can't come from nothing. The claim that something came into being from nothing is worse than magic! In order to deny this premise, you have to think that the whole universe came into being at some point in the past out of nothing, but does anyone sincerely believe this?

Same can be said for "God". He had to come from nothing, no?
 
TankAss95
Your missing the point. If vibrating strings have been vibrating for an eternal past, then it would require an actual infinite, which as I've described is absurd/impossible.
Although slightly unrelated to your point, the multiverse theory also requires a beginning according to the model brought forward by Arvind Borde, Anan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Yep, we are talking about a ex-nihilo. We are talking about an absolute a beginning here... Pretty amazing stuff.

@dylansan:
Yes, it seemed like I failed with the argument. I'm not saying that I understand why human rights are objective, but I admit defeat. I admit it.
 
R1600Turbo
Same can be said for "God". He had to come from nothing, no?

Nope - he is uncaused, as I've mentioned.
Does this prove the particular deity that I am defending? No, but it makes some of the attributes which a deity holds necessary. I have other arguments to back up other attributes to God.
 
Back