Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing actually is the problem of evil. I've been putting it off, because it is a whole new strand in itself, but we can go there.

No; you went there, when you said that life is bad if God doesn't exist but good if he does.

Anonymous wrote:As the only argument that attempts to prove God is impossible, it is formidable.

As I explicitly said, I'm not arguing that. It's on you to prove God exists.

Anonymous wrote:But it can go either way. We all know life isnt fair, that bad things happen to good people, that bad things just happen. But we don't just accept a world full of injustice, suffering, disease, death as "it is what it is." Our outrage indicates we have a sense of a standard whereby the world falls short.

Yeah...and? I don't see your point.

Anonymous wrote:And what reasons of mine did you want--why I did not believe, or why I now do believe?

I've been asking for your reasons for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in leprechauns, and in the truth of the Koran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing actually is the problem of evil. I've been putting it off, because it is a whole new strand in itself, but we can go there.

No; you went there, when you said that life is bad if God doesn't exist but good if he does.
.

.

Don't think anyone said that. And if materialism is true, life just is what it is. You can call it good or bad, but that's just your perspective, and your perspective is just matter and energy talking to itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing actually is the problem of evil. I've been putting it off, because it is a whole new strand in itself, but we can go there.

No; you went there, when you said that life is bad if God doesn't exist but good if he does.
.

.

Don't think anyone said that.

7/28, 17:25 from the OP: "The facts are the same. The meaning of the facts is completely different." "The facts" referred to are the facts of people's lives, which the OP called nasty, etc. if there is no God.

Anonymous wrote:And if materialism is true, life just is what it is. You can call it good or bad, but that's just your perspective, and your perspective is just matter and energy talking to itself.

I don't know to whom you're responding with those statements. You seem to be arguing my side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you are describing actually is the problem of evil. I've been putting it off, because it is a whole new strand in itself, but we can go there.

No; you went there, when you said that life is bad if God doesn't exist but good if he does.
.

.

Don't think anyone said that. And if materialism is true, life just is what it is. You can call it good or bad, but that's just your perspective, and your perspective is just matter and energy talking to itself.

NP. Don't think for a minute that you can invalidate people's opinions because they don't believe in God. That is unfair and you know it.

[Anonymous]

No; you went there, when you said that life is bad if God doesn't exist but good if he does.
.
.

Don't think anyone said that.

7/28, 17:25 from the OP: "The facts are the same. The meaning of the facts is completely different." "The facts" referred to are the facts of people's lives, which the OP called nasty, etc. if there is no God.

I see the confusion now. I'll try to explain.

If materialism is true, the material universe is all that there is. There is no metaphysical world. There are no souls, no life after physical death. And no God.

If that is an accurate understanding of the universe, then human life is a highly evolved life form, but all life forms are just compilations of matter and energy, come together by chance. There is no caring Creator who made everything for a purpose. There is probability and chaos and perhaps wonderment at the order that springs from that, but metaphysical, abstract concepts like good and evil, justice and injustice, right and wrong, don't actually exist. Because there is no final Authority on right and wrong. There is no perfect Justice. There are no consequences beyond what happens in this physical world.

So there are no "good" or "bad" human lives in a materialist universe. Human lives just are. It would be like saying there are "good" and "bad" fish lives.

The idea of free will means we can choose to assign value to human life, or choose to make judgments about human behavior. But without an absolute standard that transcends our ideas of what is good and what is bad, they are just personal feelings and perceptions. In fact, the very notion of free will kind of fades away. It becomes an illusion.

But let's say that humans universally believe we can choose our actions and our values, that we are not purely instinctual like other mammals. Even so, under materialism, we are still just left with our personal opinions. Materialism might grant freedom to every human person to make their own definition of right and wrong. But then that means we can never definitively say that anyone else is right or wrong.

So the fact that most humans throughout history have lived lives that were "nasty, brutish, and short" is not a value judgment. It is just an observation. It is not good or bad. It is just a description of the human experience. Just as we would describe other animal life.

Under theism, humans throughout history have still lived lives that were "nasty, brutish, and short." It is the exact same observation. The exact same set of facts.

The meaning is different because this physical life is not all that there is. Humans did not arise blindly. They were made purposefully. They were made for eternity. So they are not atoms that come together and fall apart. They are that, and something immaterial, too. And their physical life informs their metaphysical life.

So it is not "no God, bad" versus "God, good." It is "no God, no bad or good," versus "God, good that we can choose to do or not do." Or, more specifically, "no God, no bad or good, except what we choose to believe for ourselves," versus, "God, good that we can choose to conform to or reject."

Does that make any sense?

[Anonymous]

So what OP? This has become a stupid discussion.

[Anonymous]

Good lord I can't believe yall are still jabbering on about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The meaning is different because this physical life is not all that there is. Humans did not arise blindly. They were made purposefully. They were made for eternity. So they are not atoms that come together and fall apart. They are that, and something immaterial, too. And their physical life informs their metaphysical life.

So it is not "no God, bad" versus "God, good." It is "no God, no bad or good," versus "God, good that we can choose to do or not do." Or, more specifically, "no God, no bad or good, except what we choose to believe for ourselves," versus, "God, good that we can choose to conform to or reject."

Does that make any sense?

I'll move past the question of whether there's a basis for morality w/o a deity, b/c I don't want to get bogged down in that.

The bigger issue is that that when you say that a deity automatically gives your a moral compass, you're doing exactly what I said before: redefining "good," "just," etc. to mean "that which the deity wants." Belief in a deity isn't a basis for morality; it's just a basis for obedience.

Put another way, your big leap is putting the word "good" in the last phrase of your post. It should be, "Deity, to whose wishes (assuming we can somehow identify them) we can conform or not."

Yes, if there were a deity and it communicated its wishes, I would be faced with the question of whether to conform, just as with other authorities.

All this is still outside of your original question. Your statements can only contribute to an argument for choosing to believe. I addressed that argument earlier, but you said it was a straw man.

Your question was why don't I believe. You still haven't addressed my question of why you don't believe in any of the things I listed.

[Anonymous]

"Faith is what someone knows to be true, whether they believe it or not."
Flannery O'Connor

I heard this quote at my book club last night, and thought it enigmatic, but applicable to our conversation.

And I wanted to apologize for something. Several PPs have said pointedly that reason and faith don't mix. Several times, I have disagreed. But I was missing the point. I was too focused on the philosophical discussion, and ironically missed the forest for the trees. I am embarrassed to admit it, but I need to own up to my mistake.

For a complete examination of the interplay of faith and reason, I must cite Fides et Ratio, an encyclical on the subject. But basically, faith and reason are both ways to know the truth. Faith is knowing through trust. Reason is knowing through personal thinking, observation or experience.

Scientists use faith to know the truth. They trust one another's honest work. No one scientist could apply the scientific method to every hypothesis from the very start. But this faith is not a blind faith. It is based on reason. The trust is still based on the scientific method. But there is no necessary conflict between what science discovers and faith in God:

"It is the one and the same God who establishes and guarantees the intelligibility and reasonableness of the natural order of things upon which scientists confidently depend, and who reveals himself as [God]."

But I was very wrong about a crucial point: reason will never, ever give you faith: "Although faith, a gift of God, is not based on reason, it can certainly not dispense with it. At the same time, it becomes apparent that reason needs to be reinforced by faith, in order to discover horizons it cannot reach on its own."

Again, this was pointed out many times, and I just didn't get it. I thought I did, but I didn't. Perhaps because my faith began with an intellectual quest, and because my background is in philosophy, I was blind. I'm sorry.

I have a shirt that says "God is love." Knowing God is like falling in love. Way back on page 3 or so, I said that was my faith. But then I got caught up in these metaphysical and scientific discussions, and even though I said no argument ever led to God, I kept focusing on the back and forth.

I've learned so much from PPs, and I am so grateful for that. But I am truly sorry for and embarrassed about my mistakes. My sincere apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good lord I can't believe yall are still jabbering on about this.

Shoot - I'm sorry. That was messed up how we forced you to click on this thread.

Please tell us the acceptable length of an internet exchange, so we don't embarrass ourselves and trouble you again in the future.

[Anonymous]

Scientists don't really have that much trust in each other's work. Anything significant is replicated by other researchers independently. For a famous example, see cold fusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

“Coded information” is defined as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message that is independent of the communication medium."

I don't know why no poster has pointed this out, but DNA fails this definition of code. There is a physical chemical relationship between the nucleotides in DNA and the amino acids they represent. The relationship is not symbolic.

An excellent point.

[Anonymous]

The bigger issue is that that when you say that a deity automatically gives your a moral compass, you're doing exactly what I said before: redefining "good," "just," etc. to mean "that which the deity wants." Belief in a deity isn't a basis for morality; it's just a basis for obedience.

I'll go a step further, and say that the American protestant belief in a "personal savior" usually means that the "believer" can look into their own heart for guidance as to what is "good", "just", etc... Rather than a basis for obedience, it's a rationalization for any sort of behavior the "believer" wants to indulge in. Anything desire may be indulged because that feeling is perceived as "God talking". And, of course, anything can be rationalized through scripture.

In essence, it's a form of narcissistic nihilism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger issue is that that when you say that a deity automatically gives your a moral compass, you're doing exactly what I said before: redefining "good," "just," etc. to mean "that which the deity wants." Belief in a deity isn't a basis for morality; it's just a basis for obedience.

I'll go a step further, and say that the American protestant belief in a "personal savior" usually means that the "believer" can look into their own heart for guidance as to what is "good", "just", etc... Rather than a basis for obedience, it's a rationalization for any sort of behavior the "believer" wants to indulge in. Anything desire may be indulged because that feeling is perceived as "God talking". And, of course, anything can be rationalized through scripture.

In essence, it's a form of narcissistic nihilism.

.


I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger issue is that that when you say that a deity automatically gives your a moral compass, you're doing exactly what I said before: redefining "good," "just," etc. to mean "that which the deity wants." Belief in a deity isn't a basis for morality; it's just a basis for obedience.

I'll go a step further, and say that the American protestant belief in a "personal savior" usually means that the "believer" can look into their own heart for guidance as to what is "good", "just", etc... Rather than a basis for obedience, it's a rationalization for any sort of behavior the "believer" wants to indulge in. Anything desire may be indulged because that feeling is perceived as "God talking". And, of course, anything can be rationalized through scripture.

In essence, it's a form of narcissistic nihilism.

.


I agree.

There is an excellent Harper's article on this that was published several years ago. Specifically about a group of politicians, policy, and media types who essentially created a cult around the idea of the "personal Jesus". Pretty scary stuff:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525