If There Is No God

[RxForMoreCowbell]

My personal view is pretty much the opposite of what you've said. The fact that I don't believe there is anything beyond this life makes me value this life more, and therefore I think my will to survive is likely greater than believers, who believe at the end of this life is a better place.

I'd actually be interested if there are statistics on this, though I understand it would be hard to determine what people believe at any given time.

[John Cole]

Why does the hair on the back of my neck stand on end when "St. James Infirmary" kicks in at the end of A Taste of Cherry?

Because I am human, all too human. But it's also an intellectual response, too.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Some things may be measurable just not measurable by us at present.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even so the future standard would still be a standard. And it would exist now waiting for us to discover. But atheists deny even the possibility of such a standard.

[ QUOTE ]

Even taking your definition at face value does not preclude the possibility of mathematics having the property of capability of independent existence. The obvious counterexample is that of God creating something with the property of henceforth being able to exist independently of him: God could have created mathematics as a permanent and immutable framework which would be capable of existing even in his absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree but even if true by your own words it was created by God thus not independently existing. That is, it wasn't eternal but contingent and to become it needed God.

[ QUOTE ]

Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps then every act that ever occurred could be assigned a measurement based on its morality and spirituality.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you would still need a standard, an "ought". You still couldn't get it empirically, from what "is", or in this case "was".

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right.

We empathize with most, if not all*, humans, at some level of our consciousness. What DS is missing in his mechanical/vulgar-materialistic argumentation is most of what sets apart the mere animal from homo sapiens, which is our ability to conjure abstractions. (Notice that the DS justification about the formulation of human morality is equally applicable, with minor technical alreations to terms, to the rest of the animal kingdom in the formulation of their own "morality", i.e. their code for living out their lives and living in groups. What DS describes is Pavlovian "thought" process.)

It's the realization, however deeply buried, that we all share, when it comes down to it, the same fate, that is the main factor in the formulation of human morality.

It's either that -- or De Sade if we want to be honest in our thinking.




* This empathy does not, in fact, stop when we are torturing a fellow human. (Or killing him, doing him wrong, etc.) In such a case, we are generally trying to get away from this empathy as far as possible and to get on a different, superior level by playing god. All futile, natch.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The hair on the back of my neck stand[s] on end when "St. James Infirmary" kicks in at the end of A Taste of Cherry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not know that this was a Cab Calloway tune. I will try and get it.

What a director.

[ QUOTE ]
Responses that involve the film maker's technique are legitimate but can only be part of the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this, I meant that if empathy is facilitated or promoted through the artist's technique, this does not take anything away from either the artist's worth or the empathy, in general. (The more the artist is trapping his audience and leading it by iron steps to his objective, the less of an artist and the more of a hack he is, of course. But this here discussion is not about Art.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that's because you have a definition of Absolute Morals that you haven't shared yet. If you make a clear statement along the lines of - An Absolute Moral is one that action X is always immoral. ( or whatever definition you are using, ... have at it)
then we'll see if the examples I have in mind fit the definition you set.

your move, luckyme..
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

LuckyMan,

Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God. That would not add to the discussion. Indeed it would probably only lead to diverting the point to whether or not said Absolutes are indeed Absolutes.

In other words, my definitions would only muddy the conversation. So, I again ask (and I am not at all being facetious or rhetorical) – do you have any examples in mind? I can’t think of any myself.

RJT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]



That can only be if the question is being begged and the unstated definition of absolute morals = those that come from god. It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open. (not that I see any evidence that there are any)

It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.


[/ QUOTE ]


It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, a moral framework could be an inherent part of the natural structure or framework of the universe--which makes AT LEAST as much sense as first positing a God and then attributing such a structure or framework to him.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only appearing as a paradox to you because you are effectively defining God in a manner which suits your assertions. This is circular logic leading to a false dichotomy.

Specifically, as I pointed out, God could have created a framework which has the capability of existing on its own merit; that is, irrespective of him--such as the framework of mathematical truths. That's the "from God" possibility. Or, certain frameworks could exist even without there ever having been a God at all--that's the "no God" theory. But it doesn't matter to argue about these things, because either one could be true and we have no way of proving either. So you can't make an ineluctable case that an absolute framework--even an absolute moral framework--necessarily must derive from God. You can't even prove that God exists so how can you assert that various frameworks must derive from him? We don't know if an absolute moral framework exists or not. That we cannot presently measure it does not deny its possible existence. All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.

Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework, as it does to first posit a God and then attribute that framework to him. And actually, the first scenario is simpler and therefore more elegant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

because you are effectively defining God in a manner which suits your assertions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm defining God the way the Bible does. I don't base His definition on my logic. All human reason is circular in the larger sense. You have to start with a presupposition. That presupposition defines and limits what conclusions you will reach.

[ QUOTE ]

Specifically, as I pointed out, God could have created a framework which has the capability of existing on its own merit


[/ QUOTE ]

He could not have done this because it is logically impossible given the nature of God, anymore than He can lie or create a square circle. I know, that's circular. It's a presupposition. It's what the Bible says God is.

[ QUOTE ]

All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm asserting what the Bible says, "Nothing has come into being apart from Him". Because if something exists apart from God He isn't God.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework,


[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't because to do so you must presuppose the non-existence of the Biblical God, which destroys all sense.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]




Exactly. I'm asserting what the Bible says, "Nothing has come into being apart from Him". Because if something exists apart from God He isn't God.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I said God MIGHT have created mathematical laws such that they would exist with or without him. If you view that as a square circle (I don't), then just consider the alternative possibility that such laws could simply exist as a natural part of the universe, as in the atheists view. Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework, as it does to first posit a God and then attribute that framework to him

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't because to do so you must presuppose the non-existence of the Biblical God, which destroys all sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Positing the non-existence of God doesn't destroy sense in the least. It's merely one possibility to consider. If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?