Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity. We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine. We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different. Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling). Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God. But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him. How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known? Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing. The skeptic says we cannot know the truth. The subjectivist says we all know it. The skeptic denies truth; the subjectivist denies error. Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's assume for the moment that because we do not have an explanation for the existence of matter, we have to posit a creator. Okay. That doesn't get you to God as any major world religion defines him. It just gets you a creator.

That is fine! If we call God the Creator, the First Mover, does that change some of the professed atheists' position? Because very few of the PPs who professed atheism specifically stated they do not believe in a Creator. They just had problems with various religions.

As soon as you call God a Creator, you are envisioning God as an intelligent being. Physics does not require an intelligent being to explain the creation of the Universe. Physics does not know what, if anything existed prior to that moment, but the standard model handles everything from T=0.

I don't think it follows that, as soon as you call God a Creator, you are envisioning an intelligent being. Does a creator need to be intelligent? does it need to be a "being"? Isn't saying this a bit antropomorphic? Whatever it is, God is our only word for it. And the Standard Model does indeed only tell you about everything from T>0. T=0 is the great mystery.

To me, the word "creator" implies will. I have a hard time calling a force such a gravity "creator". I suppose we could call a force "creator". But if we do, how meaningful is the term? If I say my god is quantum loop gravitation, do I have anything meaningfully in common with other believers beyond the idea that the universe had a starting point?

It is true that we don't know everything at T=0, but we know most of the story. We are really debating the first 10^-43 seconds of existence, which is probably the smallest fraction of time ever debated about anything. The Standard Model says the universe is infinitely hot and dense at T=0, and the quantum loop gravitation people think a prior universe crunches to nearly but not exactly that point. The fact that we can't yet work out the quantum gravitational calculations is no reason to say "Oh, there is a mystery! That proves there is a God!". Isn't that the oldest justification for God? We don't understand something, so we attribute it to divinity? But we don't worship volcanoes anymore, so I don't think that the inability to explain every detail at the beginning of the universe gives us cause to jump to the conclusion of God.

The fact is that whether we believe in God or not, we have a difficult concept to swallow: that there is something that either began out of nothing or something that always was. Whether that thing is God or the universe, it is always tough to comprehend because there is only one such "first thing", and we will never be there to see that moment.

FWIW I believe in God, but not because I need an explanation for how the universe began. Physics is good enough for that to me.

[Anonymous]

OK - I put my hand up - I only understand half of what you say. And even then your logic is weird to me.

Isn't the question based on morals? And you don't need to be a skeptic or subjectivist to have decent morals ... i.e. do unto others, etc.

Which brings me to the reason I am a non-believer. Because I don't need a religion to teach me how to behave. I have an innate sense of it. Much like an ant knows how to fit into that complex march.

[Anonymous]

You can know god? You know your feelings. You can't know a god like you know a person. You can know of them and attribute many human characteristics, but you never really know them. The ones who claim to speak to god are promptly medicated.

[Anonymous]

One more thought from the 23:05 PP. You speak of truth and love as if they are synonymous with or proof of a god. They exist independently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So when someone doesn't find God in this journey, people who make this argument say "his heart is closed", "his search was not genuine", "he was not ready to receive God". In other words, the failure to find God is the fault of the seeker. That's incredibly condescending.

I understand your argument. But I truly believe that people who honestly and openly seek God (or whatever they call their higher power) will find Him. I think it's impossible not to. I think God wants us to look for Him.

I'm not talking about the whole heaven and hell, Southern Baptist stuff. I'm talking about a simple spiritual connection with your creator.

If other people say they tried, and they failed, how can you know they did it wrong? What about the people who once truly believed just like you, and now don't? Having once opened their heart, it seems they should now either follow or reject god, but it would be impossible to disbelieve in him because that knowledge cannot be undone. And yet people fall out of faith all of the time.

I'm sorry, it may not come from a mean-spirited place, but it really is condescending. You are finding fault with people for no other reason than that their search for faith is unsuccessful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity. We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine. We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different. Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling). Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God. But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him. How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known? Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing. The skeptic says we cannot know the truth. The subjectivist says we all know it. The skeptic denies truth; the subjectivist denies error. Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?

You are really contorting skepticism to fit what you want it to be.

Religious skepticism does not say that we cannot know anything about God. Religious skeptics say that we have no proof of God. A skeptic would never claim to prove a negative.

[Anonymous]

I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, objective truth.

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Objective truth regarding math and the laws of physics does not seem to need God (putting aside the questions of who set the first object in motion, why something and not nothing, energy, etc.). We can observe gravity. We can figure out that sand will not work in our car's engine. We can accept that humans cannot fly like birds.

Objective truth regarding right and wrong actions is different. Why was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of living babies?

PPs have indicated religious skepticism (objective truth is ONLY found in the sciences) or religious subjectivism (religious "objective truth" is merely feeling). Religious skeptics say we cannot know objective truth about God. But the skeptic is saying he knows God well enough to know we can know nothing about Him. How can the skeptic know with certainty that God cannot be known? Skeptics usually don't think it is important to know, or are prejudiced against knowing. The skeptic says we cannot know the truth. The subjectivist says we all know it. The skeptic denies truth; the subjectivist denies error. Objective truth is "for you, but not for me.".

So for the skeptics and the subjectivists regarding objective truth of right and wrong, why is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies?

You are really contorting skepticism to fit what you want it to be.

Religious skepticism does not say that we cannot know anything about God. Religious skeptics say that we have no proof of God. A skeptic would never claim to prove a negative.

But do you see that your definition of a skeptic is the same as mine, just phrased in a way that stacks the deck in an attempt to make skepticism look humble, rather than arrogant?

PP after PP stated "I see no evidence of God" or "There is no way to prove God exists" or "We have no proof of God." That is begging the question. That is assuming what you want to conclude.

Religious skeptics are willing to see objective truth in nonreligious fields. Just not religious ones. That is actually a positive statement that objective truth about God is unknowable.

This is a good time to point out the interplay of intellect, will, and emotions. The intellect is Mr. Spock, the will is Captain Kirk, and the emotions are Dr. McCoy. (The Enterprise is the soul, but I know mentioning the soul will bother people, so forget that.) The will can command the intellect to think, but the intellect cannot command the will to will--it can only inform the will. And the will cannot just make you believe (many PPs said they wanted to believe, but couldn't, because they just did not see enough to believe in).

Belief happens when you decide to be honest, and place your mind in service of objective truth. Justin Martyr gave this description of the process:

#1 A man seeks the truth by the unaided effort of reason, and is disappointed.
#2 It is offered him by faith, and he accepts.
#3 And, having accepted, he finds it satisfies his reason.

Do you see where skeptics run into trouble?

Those who believe there is objective truth about God do not pretend to know everything about Him. But they do claim He is not unknowable. We are finite, in time, we change, we decay, we cannot create something out of nothing. So we cannot know an infinite, always was and always will be Creator. But there are some thing we can know.

If we are willing to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK - I put my hand up - I only understand half of what you say. And even then your logic is weird to me.

Isn't the question based on morals? And you don't need to be a skeptic or subjectivist to have decent morals ... i.e. do unto others, etc.

Which brings me to the reason I am a non-believer. Because I don't need a religion to teach me how to behave. I have an innate sense of it. Much like an ant knows how to fit into that complex march.

So morality as instinct? Objective truth about right and wrong is "independent of the knower and his consciousness" and "is what is" because it is just there, instinctual.

But this does not fit our experience of right and wrong. No instinct in itself is always right. But morality is always right. Therefore, morality is not just an instinct.

Think of our instincts as notes. Morality tells us when to play them, and how. Morality is a law which tells our instincts what they SHOULD do in different situations. Instincts "are," while morality is what "should be."

An instinctualist says "This is my innate sense," then "Therefore, this is what ought to be done." That syllogism needs one more step to be true: "All innate senses should be followed." But that second step is obviously false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK - I put my hand up - I only understand half of what you say. And even then your logic is weird to me.

Isn't the question based on morals? And you don't need to be a skeptic or subjectivist to have decent morals ... i.e. do unto others, etc.

Which brings me to the reason I am a non-believer. Because I don't need a religion to teach me how to behave. I have an innate sense of it. Much like an ant knows how to fit into that complex march.

So morality as instinct? Objective truth about right and wrong is "independent of the knower and his consciousness" and "is what is" because it is just there, instinctual.

But this does not fit our experience of right and wrong. No instinct in itself is always right. But morality is always right. Therefore, morality is not just an instinct.

Think of our instincts as notes. Morality tells us when to play them, and how. Morality is a law which tells our instincts what they SHOULD do in different situations. Instincts "are," while morality is what "should be."

An instinctualist says "This is my innate sense," then "Therefore, this is what ought to be done." That syllogism needs one more step to be true: "All innate senses should be followed." But that second step is obviously false.

Not the pp... but morality is always right? While there may be some common trends, morals vary from society to society and change over time and I can think of some times when a society's perception on what was morally acceptable would be considered wrong by today's standards and my own.

I mentioned this before but many common trends in morals have an evolutionary purpose. Some people jump to "they're the same therefore it's god!!!" but I think that's flawed considering that gods aren't even proven to exist.

[Anonymous]

Back to the question raised by a PP:

Can we know objective truth about right and wrong without God?

Perhaps I cannot PROVE the existence of objective truth about right and wrong. But you cannot prove the truth is only what can be proved. The law of noncontradiction cannot be proved, but it is presupposed in all proofs, even though trying to prove it is always begging the question.

What is the alternative? Why is ripping the hearts out of innocent babies WRONG?

(Now I really need to get back to exercising!!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the question raised by a PP:

Can we know objective truth about right and wrong without God?

Perhaps I cannot PROVE the existence of objective truth about right and wrong. But you cannot prove the truth is only what can be proved. The law of noncontradiction cannot be proved, but it is presupposed in all proofs, even though trying to prove it is always begging the question.

What is the alternative? Why is ripping the hearts out of innocent babies WRONG?

(Now I really need to get back to exercising!!)

The only way we can actually know anything is for there to be evidence. That applies towards the existence of gods, and their supposed contribution to morality.

Why is ripping out the hearts of babies or any other action like that wrong? A Christian may say "because my god says so", I say "because it hurts the baby and it's loved ones".

It is possible to develop and have morals and moral reasoning skills without a god. Any social group will develop it's own morals and ethics (often with the preservation of that society/species in mind. Again, seemingly evolutionary).Therefore, a god is not needed. Being moral because you're afraid of a consequence or because you want a reward is a very low level of moral reasoning skills and morality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK - I put my hand up - I only understand half of what you say. And even then your logic is weird to me.

Isn't the question based on morals? And you don't need to be a skeptic or subjectivist to have decent morals ... i.e. do unto others, etc.

Which brings me to the reason I am a non-believer. Because I don't need a religion to teach me how to behave. I have an innate sense of it. Much like an ant knows how to fit into that complex march.

So morality as instinct? Objective truth about right and wrong is "independent of the knower and his consciousness" and "is what is" because it is just there, instinctual.

But this does not fit our experience of right and wrong. No instinct in itself is always right. But morality is always right. Therefore, morality is not just an instinct.

Think of our instincts as notes. Morality tells us when to play them, and how. Morality is a law which tells our instincts what they SHOULD do in different situations. Instincts "are," while morality is what "should be."

An instinctualist says "This is my innate sense," then "Therefore, this is what ought to be done." That syllogism needs one more step to be true: "All innate senses should be followed." But that second step is obviously false.

Not the pp... but morality is always right? While there may be some common trends, morals vary from society to society and change over time and I can think of some times when a society's perception on what was morally acceptable would be considered wrong by today's standards and my own.

I mentioned this before but many common trends in morals have an evolutionary purpose. Some people jump to "they're the same therefore it's god!!!" but I think that's flawed considering that gods aren't even proven to exist.

#1 If cultures differ about morality, then morality is subjective and relative.
#2 Cultures do differ about morality.
#3 Therefore, morality is subjective and relative.

#1 Is false. Cultures can err, just like people. What is culturally relative is opinions about morality, not right and wrong itself.
#2 is false in a more nuanced way. No culture has ever existed that lived an entirely, universal set of alternate values. Courage, wisdom, kindness, temperance, faithfulness, loyalty, steadfastness were never all thought to be WRONG, just as lying, cheating, raping, killing, selfishness, arrogance, and laziness were all thought to be RIGHT.

Anthropology does not discover a diversity of morality, just opinions about morality. Morality is objective truth about right and wrong.