Why don't you believe in God?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
We have been going over and over this. You can no longer just say it and claim it is true. You will continue to ignore the posts to the contrary. Fine. So what makes you certain that God's law is morally good? Clearly power alone does not define morality. So how do you know our God is not malevolent? If you actually try to answer this question, you will see that you are in the same boat as the atheist. Namely, we have decided that our God is good because what he asks of us seems to be morally good, independent of his command to us to obey it. |
Anonymous
Why begin with an unmoved mover? Why not begin with an uncaused cause? Can you prove that the original cause is sentient and moral? |
Anonymous
The poster who thinks to have proven that there is a God, has in fact only proven that according to his/her definition there is a God, but this definition didn't say anything about the character/type of this God -- the definition was purely "something that injected objective morality into the universe". In other words, that poster has proven that a == a, and no new propositions appear. |
Anonymous
|
Mathematics is a field that requires that it be clear where each step comes from. So where does math start? It starts with sets, usually indicated by listing their elements between curly brackets, { ... }. Where to start -- the only possible place, the empty set {}, which has no elements. Since it has zero elements, it is used as the definition of 0. So what is 1 -- it is a set consisting of one element, the only available element, the empty set, 1 = {0} = {{}}. Then you can probably guess that 2 = {0, 1} = {{}, {{}}}, and from there on, each integer is defined to be the set consisting of all its predecessors.
Thus are infinitely many integers developed, literally, from nothing. All it takes is the ability to distinguish between nothing and the set that contains nothing. So why do some of us think that the Original Cause should be incomparably great rather than a dimensionless Black Hole? |
Anonymous
Well not only that, but it is possible that there is no such thing as a first cause. Yup, it's true. Time (and therefore causality) may be a construct of ours, just like we think the sun rises and sets when in fact we spin. |
Anonymous
I think this philosophical argument is passing posters by. Perhaps we are all too comfortable in our positions to erase certain assumptions and begin at the beginning. My argument does not simply state "God is good.". That would be a true tautology. The argument from morality is more like: "Every human knows, deep down, that s/he is absolutely obligated to do good and avoid evil. Absolute obligation can only come from an Absolute Authority. The Absolute Authority is God. Therefore, every human being can know God." What I am asking for is an alternative to the Absolute Authority, because I think everyone here would agree that humans sense an obligation to follow the dictates of their consciences. This obligation is acknowledged and expressed everywhere, from Disney ("follow your heart") to anti-war protestors (conscientious objection) to the Arlington 5 (their consciences forbid them from signing a fidelity oath to the Church). Four different options to God are often presented: an idea (abstract and impersonal), an instinct (concrete but less than human), A society (concrete and human), something higher than humans that is not God (concrete, more than human). An idea? Some sort of abstract ideal, a complete and coherent pattern? Where does this ideal exist? How can it be real, if no one has ever seen it, examined it, touched it? Any one person's idea can have no will behind it besides its own. But conscience binds us all, individually and absolutely. An idea is not enough. Not enough for an absolute, infallible, no-exceptions Authority. An instinct? Again, not sufficient. Because the authority of conscience is absolute. Instincts can be ignored or overcome--indeed, sometimes, they SHOULD be overcome. Note the word "should.". That "ought to" is the authority again. Instinct is like the keys on the piano, while authority is like the sheet music. Still looking... A society's decision? This position, while popular (such as PP's ideas of an evolutionary trait that is necessary for humans to live together in groups, or certain political theorists, like Rawls), has never been espoused by residents of concentration camps, slaves on plantations, and prisoners of Chinese political prisons. Think French Revolution, Stalinist Russia, Mexico in the 1920s, etc. etc. Again, not sufficient for an absolute, binding authority common to all human beings. Something higher than animal instinct, something greater than any group of human beings...but what? Back to an idea? Not enough. That leaves God, and no other. Of all the ancient humans, one group took the two most simple human understandings--the absolute authority heard through conscience, and the origin of all--and realized they are One. Origin of conscience and origin of nature means God. Christians and Muslims inherited that understanding. But at its essence, the argument from morality states that conscience wields an absolute, exceptionless, binding moral authority over us. But only a an absolute, perfect, divine will could deserve such obedience. So conscience is the voice of the will of God. Now, consciences may err. It is our obligation to form our consciences with the truth. Truth is a combination of revelation and reason. And it can be found everywhere, in all things, in some form or another, and wherever it is found, it comes from God. God is not malevolent, or schizophrenic. Right reason leads to the realization that God is the Absolute Authority. |
Anonymous
I might join you in this argument. But again, the question comes up: so what? You have only shown that there is an Absolute Authority. You have not shown anything about the nature of this Authority, or shown anything that can remotely support the Bible, or Koran (except "there is a God"). In other words: you (might) have proven that there is some abstract Absolute Authority -- but you have not shown anything at all about the God that most Americans are familiar with (a God that interferes in mankind's history, that created a holy book, that sent his son to the world etc). This Absolute Authority sounds like a New Age kind of God, something that is safely non-controversial because this God doesn't actually do anything 
|
Anonymous
You realize you just checkmated yourself, right? If reason can tell us this that God's law is moral, then reason can determine morality. Otherwise, you can't know whether God is moral or malevolent. |
Anonymous
|
I am sure someone asked this way back in 2011! Why does that OP or anyone else care if I believe in G-d or a higher power. Seriously? Are you wrestling with something yourself?
I am happy for those who feel certain in their beliefs. I just hope you give everyone else the space to have theirs. |
Anonymous
Because they want everyone to have a chance to go to Heaven? Because, apparently, it is better to be a morally corrupt, evil sinner who believes than a very good, moral non-believer when it comes to the afterlife. Either that or it cultivates the illusion of a common bond in which to draw on when attempting to illegally take, through whatever means necessary, including crimes against humanity, the resources of people different from your group. |
Anonymous
Don't those things point to a morality determined by reason and society? People can do atrocious things because they "know" they are doing it for a greater good. It may not seem to benefit the greater good from where we sit, but they believed it at the time. Reason and societal norms determine morality. Please do not underestimate the power of peer pressure, including the kind that is never spoken. There is no absolution in morality. We can probably all agree that smothering our own children is immoral, right? Not only does is go against our basic instincts of protecting our young, but it violates societal norms. I will give you an example that I read in a study about morality. A village is being invaded by a group that is going from town to town carrying out ethnic cleansing. A woman is home with her children and elderly parents. They decide to hide in a cellar to avoid being found. The youngest of her children, a baby, starts to cry just when she hears soldiers coming. Attempts to quiet the baby fail. She has to choose to suffocate her own baby or let it cry. Being found means the entire family will be killed. Is it wrong to suffocate the baby or is it wrong to let all of your children and parents be slaughtered? It's not an easy question to answer. We all know killing our children is wrong, but are there some circumstances in which it is the right and moral decision? Open to interpretation =/= absolute |
Anonymous
|
I don't believe in god or gods, because I don't understand how any one version of god/gods is supposed to be more "right" or "real" or "correct."
I understand that a lot of people believe in a god that is supportive, all-listening, an afterlife of paradise, and all that fluffy stuff - because it comforts them. It fulfills something for them. But rationally, I can't understand how the fluffy god is more believable than the angry, vengeful, violent god. Or multiple gods that can't reconcile with each other, hence wayward forces playing out on earth. One version of god or gods is just not more believable than another. I understand that religion and gods help fulfill something missing from people's life - it helps order the chaos they see in the world. But I can't distinguish between it, and say, ancient Greek, or Egyptian, or Mayan mythology. They're stories that explain things... but they're stories written by people who don't know any better. |
Anonymous
| The Greeks believed in many gods which we now think is absurd. In 1000 years people will look at our beliefs and similarly mock things like a virgin birth |
Anonymous
I'm an atheist, but I think polytheism actually makes much more sense than monotheism or henotheism. Virgin birth is a concept that occurs in pre-Christian mythology - Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Greek. ALL religious ideas come from borrowing bits and pieces from their mythological predecessors. |
Anonymous
|
It has been my experience that these arguments never go anywhere in the sense that no one is every persuaded to change their stance.
It seems the only time people go from religion/belief to atheism or from atheism to religion/belief is when some event happens in their lives. It rarely ever happens as a result of a debate or conversation. So why do we continue on with these fruitless debates? Why can't we set the god question aside and figure out if there is an ethical standard or set of standards on which we can all reasonably agree? And then let's just be happy with that. |