Does morality exist without God? (2)

Tinker Grey said:

Please present a premises that you think we should all accept and that lead to a theistic conclusion.

Click to expand...

Please let's stick to the OP shall we?

Tzaousios said:

If you have already decided that there is no God, Christian or otherwise, and that those who believe in God are delusional, then how could the "validity" or "truth" even be proved for you?

Click to expand...

With sound evidence and sound arguments, of course. Can you provide any? If so then please do.

Thus, despite your pleading for "sound arguments" and "true premises," in actual fact it is only an exercise in rhetorical vilification and denigration.

Click to expand...

So you consider asking Christians to provide a sound argument that the Christian God is the source of morality to be vilification and denigration? Do you think we should just accept all Christian claims without question? Do you think Christians should never have to establish the validity or truth of their claims?

Again, if Christians want to argue that the Christian God is the source of morality, they first need to prove that the Christian God actually exists.

There is an issue with God and His existence.

In the world of Logic, there is 'argumentum ad ignorantiam.'

"Someone commits the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam if he or she argues something is true because it has not been proved false, or false because it hasn't been proved true."

God has not been proven either way and we must depend solely on reason for the arguing of God's existence.

Asking for it to be proven really isn't the way; nor is demanding that it is disproven.

That's an observation for you.

Verv said:

God has not been proven either way and we must depend solely on reason for the arguing of God's existence.

Click to expand...

Sound arguments for the existence of the Christian God would prove its existence. However, as you note, there haven’t been any yet despite millennia of failed attempts. Because its existence isn’t proven, you cannot use it as a premise to the argument that it is the source of morality. Until Christians can establish the existence of the Christian God, any argument that it is the source of morality is unsound.

Tzaousios said:

In reality, the only acceptable premises are ones which are made to disprove theism. If that doesn't happen, they will at least be set up to mock theism and display it in a negative light.

Click to expand...

Tinker Grey said:

Please present a premises that you think we should all accept and that lead to a theistic conclusion.

Click to expand...

Philothei said:

Please let's stick to the OP shall we?

Click to expand...

Just responding to an assertion that apparently was off-topic.

3sigma said:

Sound arguments for the existence of the Christian God would prove its existence. However, as you note, there haven’t been any yet despite millennia of failed attempts. Because its existence isn’t proven, you cannot use it as a premise to the argument that it is the source of morality. Until Christians can establish the existence of the Christian God, any argument that it is the source of morality is unsound.

Click to expand...

Just because you do not believe there is not reason He (God) does not exist... Spiritual realm is not "proven" only experiential. A reality is not taking place because you happen not to experience it? Or a tree is NOT falling in the woods if you are NOT present?

Philothei said:

Just because you do not believe there is not reason He (God) does not exist...

Click to expand...

And just because you do believe it doesn’t mean it does exist. You can believe whatever you like, but that doesn’t make it true. No amount of belief can make something a fact.

Spiritual realm is not "proven" only experiential.

Click to expand...

In this context, it appears “spiritual” means “imaginary”. The imaginary realm is not proven, only experiential.

A reality is not taking place because you happen not to experience it? Or a tree is NOT falling in the woods if you are NOT present?

Click to expand...

Are you comparing trees falling in woods to the existence of the Christian God and saying that it has never been proven that trees fall in woods? We have plenty of sound evidence that trees do actually fall in woods even though we may not witness the event as it occurs. The problem with the Christian God is that there has never been a single shred of sound evidence or one sound argument to prove that it exists.

If you want to argue that the Christian God is the source of morality, you first need to prove that it even exists.

Just because you do not believe there is not reason He (God) does not exist...

Click to expand...

There are way to many "nots" in this sentence. I assume you mean that he does believe there is a reason God doesn't exist? No rational atheist will claim that there is a reason (or evidence that will cause you) to believe God doesn't exist. God is a claim that simply hasn't met it's burden of proof, there isn't any negative proof regarding God.

Spiritual realm is not "proven" only experiential.

Click to expand...

What experiments are being done to test spiritual claims? While things aren't ever "proven" in science, there are still degrees of proof. i.e. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Claim of the spiritual however, don't even approach this standard.

A reality is not taking place because you happen not to experience it? Or a tree is NOT falling in the woods if you are NOT present?

Click to expand...

Just as the lack of evidence doesn't disprove the spiritual, it also doesn't prove it. When there is absolutely no observations to back up a claim, it is the rational position to disbelieve the claim.

Verv said:

There is an issue with God and His existence.

In the world of Logic, there is 'argumentum ad ignorantiam.'

"Someone commits the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam if he or she argues something is true because it has not been proved false, or false because it hasn't been proved true."

God has not been proven either way and we must depend solely on reason for the arguing of God's existence.

Asking for it to be proven really isn't the way; nor is demanding that it is disproven.

That's an observation for you.

Click to expand...

But you still start off in a state of non-belief. Here is a claim that is similar to God:

"There is an all loving God made of Pasta. His name is the flying spaghetti monster, and if you worship him you get to go to his beer and stripper factory in the sky."

Do you disbelieve it or believe it? Why?

I've always liked this one better. It has the questions and a nice sunny background.

Insane_Duck said:

But you still start off in a state of non-belief. Here is a claim that is similar to God:

"There is an all loving God made of Pasta. His name is the flying spaghetti monster, and if you worship him you get to go to his beer and stripper factory in the sky."

Do you disbelieve it or believe it? Why?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of logical reasons why philosophers have argued for the existence of God.

It is generally assumed that if God exists, He'd have certain characteristics consistent with the traits of someone who would create us; or that, if God exists, there would have been a motivation that He had in His creation of us that would involve reaching out to us.

There would also probably be a logic in all of this that would dictate certain ideals and beliefs for a God.

The idea of a 'flying spaghetti monster' is merely an attempt to make it all sound absurd -- the idea that there is a place full of beers and strippers solely for us is also absurd, as there is no moral quality here; no concept of right or wrong worked into this but merely a concept of pleasure.

If you were to listen to the description of Krsna in the Bhagavad-Gita he does not sound anything like a human in appearance... He might as well be a flying spaghetti monster.

However, in Christendom we believe that God created man in His Image, which also seems logical -- that the highest animal of His Creation would be special, and that He would be interested in modeling it after Himself if He loved the creature well.

There is a logic in this if you bother to try to understand our perspectives.

Insane_Duck said:

I've always liked this one better. It has the questions and a nice sunny background.

Click to expand...

"but how can we believe it is the word of God?"

It is a book of high values that shows a clear prophetic chain from the beginning to the necessary conclusion -- there is an entire evolution that would make sense, as at certain points in history a certain message would be appropriate, and such a message was delivered unto the Israelites and then eventually unto the whole world through the messasge brought to Christ.

Of course, there are certainly other books that preach high morals that also have religious ramifications; however, most of these have no prophetic chain that goes with them that would be indicative at all of it coming from God Himself.

Other than Hinduism, there really is not a competing conception of Godhead and the prophetic succession for a religion that is coming to the people as the message of God is revealed...

Hinduism is a good thing -- a worthy thing to debate and discuss. The views of the Hare Krsna are compelling, however, they are also fraught with a lot of issues that go back to elitism...

And Hinduism in general can often be a petty religion based on caste which discriminates against people far and wide.