Why live at all?

[Archaeopteryx]

what is the greatest being you can think of? describe this being to me.

A being that can create whole universes without even existing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not to a God.

Rather, actually.

If naturalism is true then nothing we do as humans is actually important, has any meaning, or any significance.

I am talking about reality.

If God does not exist, then what follows? You seem to be aware of the implications.

What follows is that we exist as a result of certain natural processes acting on matter over a period of time.

The end. There is no rhyme or reason why it just so happened to turn out the way it did because there is no one who made it the way it is for a purpose.

The universe and all of us in it "just are". The implications cannot be understated. Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Shaeffer, etc. etc. all wrote about this.

And yet purpose is not a problem for your God, who "just is"?

you mean the atheist would reject them

I actually am not alluding to God at all when it comes to my reasoning.

I am simply stating the implications of metaphysical naturalism.

You're laying out the implications of naturalism for someone who believes in God-given purpose. In other words, the "implications" you list stem from certain theistic assumptions.

God made me for a purpose. One of those purposes is to glorify Him.

Sounds awfully vain.

I think God is evident because He created the world and all that is within it. Humans included.

Since God is love, He would create us in such a way that His existence would be undeniable. And it is. Yet people deny He exists. The Bible speaks of such people as fools. Fools because in professing to be wise, they have become fools and worship themselves rather than the One who made them.

How undeniable is it, really? I presume you deny the truth of the Islamic concept of God? The Hindu Gods you also deny. Odin, Zeus, and their pantheons are surely deniable to you? Given how deniable these gods are, why is it so difficult to imagine that others can deny your god?

You see, subjects like sin and righteousness and worship and honor and reverence leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the proud. For the one who worships himself, worshiping God is simply not something he is willing to do.

Likewise, why is it so difficult to imagine that others do not engage in worship? I don't worship myself. I don't even know what that means or what that would look like.

Does this comment reveal something more personal about yourself? That if you didn't worship God you would worship yourself?

So we can get past the silly notion that you do not believe because there is no evidence. You do not believe because you do not like the fact that in believing, you must acknowledge you are not God.

I already acknowledge that I am not a god.

You would have to admit the world does not revolve around you but one greater than you.

I never believed that the world revolved around me. Well, perhaps when I was 2 or 3.

Disbelief stems from a refusal to honor God as He deserves. Disbelief is a result of idol worship, a deliberate and intentional violation of the first commandment.

Can't speak for everyone on this matter, but my own lack of belief stems from the bad evidence and poor arguments the religious use to make the ramshackle case for their various gods.

While we are able, let us get past the formalities and get to the heart of why you two are atheists shall we?

The two of you are unbelievers because you cannot bear the fact worship honor and glory are due to one other than yourself.

Even if one were to believe in God, where does the requirement of worship come from? If God is as perfect as most Christians say he is, then there is nothing he could gain from my worship and there is nothing he stands to lose if I do not worship him. Worship becomes pointless; it adds nothing to God since he lacks nothing. Where then does the debt of worship come from and why is it owed?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I know of many people who say they are Christians, do not worship God the way you do. They never mention God, never go to Church, never honor, worship or give glory to the God they claim to worship. They just go through life as if this God doesn't exist.
If what you said were true, what is to stop me from being one of these type of Christians?

Ken

Nothing

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

A being that can create whole universes without even existing.

To exist is greater than non-existence.

And anyway your post is non sensical. For how could we speak of a being creating something if it did not exist? Existence is a necessaty condition for volitional acts.

 

[durangodawood]

To exist is greater than non-existence.

And anyway your post is non sensical. For how could we speak of a being creating something if it did not exist? Existence is a necessaty condition for volitional acts.

Speaking of non-sensical....

I dont even think we can use the word "exist" to describe anything outside our universe. We dont even know what it means to talk about existence beyond our universe. It's non-sense.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Speaking of non-sensical....

I dont even think we can use the word "exist" to describe anything outside our universe. We dont even know what it means to talk about existence beyond our universe. It's non-sense.

I know what it means. If you do not, then all you have to be is be willing to be taught what it means.

 

[super animator]

Pretending to possess knowledge that is either non-existent or impossible to access is a time-honored tradition of theology.

No it's not. What makes you think that the non-religious are incapable of "Pretending to possess knowledge that is either non-existent or impossible to access"?

 

[Gadarene]

No it's not. What makes you think that the non-religious are incapable of "Pretending to possess knowledge that is either non-existent or impossible to access"?

Where did he say they were?

 

[Dave Ellis]

To exist is greater than non-existence.

And anyway your post is non sensical. For how could we speak of a being creating something if it did not exist? Existence is a necessaty condition for volitional acts.

Wrong, existence and non existence are simple states of being, neither once can coherently be said to be "greater" than the other.

However, when speaking about handicaps to a potential creator, then non existence would be the greatest handicap it could overcome.

You see, the important thing is not that this being actually has any bearing on reality. What we're doing is pointing out the fatal flaw in the ontological argument. All that matters is that you can conceive of such a being.

And that's why basing an argument off of conceptual beings, then asserting they are actually somehow real is nonsensical. The ontological argument is not in the least bit convincing, or logically valid.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Wrong, existence and non existence are simple states of being, neither once can coherently be said to be "greater" than the other.

However, when speaking about handicaps to a potential creator, then non existence would be the greatest handicap it could overcome.

You see, the important thing is not that this being actually has any bearing on reality. What we're doing is pointing out the fatal flaw in the ontological argument. All that matters is that you can conceive of such a being.

And that's why basing an argument off of conceptual beings, then asserting they are actually somehow real is nonsensical. The ontological argument is not in the least bit convincing, or logically valid.

ok...

I asked you certain questions that you have not even answered, none of them dealing with the ontological argument.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'd say there's no evidence to show that anything supernatural or transcendant exists outside the universe.

Getting back to what you and I were discussing.

So you maintain that there was no designer or creator who made the universe for a specific purpose or plan right?

If so, then the universe came to be as a result of natural processes that somehow caused the singularity of immense density to somehow explode.

Is this what you believe?

 

[durangodawood]

I know what it means. If you do not, then all you have to be is be willing to be taught what it means.

I doubt you know what it means to "exist" not-within our universe.

How could you know? You have no access to that realm, if there even is such.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I doubt you know what it means to "exist" not-within our universe.

How could you know? You have no access to that realm, if there even is such.

I do have access to it.

 

[durangodawood]

I do have access to it.

Really? How?

 

[Gadarene]

I do have access to it.

and we're the ones accused of wanting to be gods

 

[Dave Ellis]

ok...

I asked you certain questions that you have not even answered, none of them dealing with the ontological argument.

What questions are those?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Really? How?

my sensus divinitatis.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What questions are those?

reference my post #271

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

and we're the ones accused of wanting to be gods

i do not want to be a god if that is what you are implying.

 

[durangodawood]

my sensus divinitatis.

Perhaps. And I certainly dont outright deny such a capacity within humans.

But... from my perspective it looks like that may well turn out to be some combination of imagination and faith.