Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

Status
Not open for further replies.

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I tried, but I can't parse any of this.

Of course you can't. Your sense of what is good and right is human, inherent, and more than your metaphysical commitments allow for. Admit it. You believe in what is good, true, and of value and you simply have no way to explain it, but you also have no desire to give it up in order to be consistent with your naturalism. Or, perhaps, you are a Platonist of some shade?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course you can't. Your sense of what is good and right is human, inherent, and more than your metaphysical commitments allow for. Admit it. You believe in what is good, true, and of value and you simply have no way to explain it, but you also have no desire to give it up in order to be consistent with your naturalism. Or, perhaps, you are a Platonist of some shade?

You're confused.

I meant 'I can't parse any of this' as in 'what you wrote is mostly gibberish'. One long, verbose fallacy of composition. If you can't be bothered to take another crack at it, I can't be bothered to reply.

But if you want to, you could maybe start by clarifying what you mean by 'metaphysical commitments', and what you think mine are.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And in regards to the 'criteria' for heaven, I'm going to also steal from @Eight Foot Manchild ... 'No one goes to heaven.' Meaning, once you cross that threshold from death to heaven, you no longer are a sinner. You are no longer you. Which means you are transformed anew. And if you are transformed anew, and everyone was a sinner, prior to death, then it makes no sense to reject some recipients into this new 'perfect' kingdom.

It goes further than that.

If you're in Heaven, with the knowledge that people you knew and loved in your mortal life aren't there, that's going to cause you anguish. Which means it can't be Heaven.

If you're in Heaven, either without that knowledge, or with the knowledge but without the anguish because you've been 'made anew', then it's not you any more.

So either 'Heaven' isn't Heaven, or the person who actually goes there isn't you. In either case, no one goes to Heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
You have tried to gloss over what matters most, if anything matters at all. What does it mean to value? But first, what are you quantifying over when you quantify over harm vs. well being? If you are being consistent with your metaphysical commitments, aren't you simply marking the difference between a collection of matter with a contiguous boundary in time and space that stays intact vs. a collection of matter that doesn't? What is a human other than a collection of matter? Sure, we like to think we matter more than rocks, but according to your commitments, we don't. To argue otherwise would be to make a value judgement, and you don't want to do that, do you?

Maybe you also wanted to include the subjective experience of feeling harm vs. a sense of well-being. But, according to your commitments, these are simply the result of stimuli acting on a body that is sentient (unless you are also concerned about the harm and well-being of rocks). Why should sentience give a body more value? It can't. At least, it can't latch on to some value that transcends its own subjective feeling.

I get it that you don't want to die, and so you feel confident in extending that sentiment categorically. But, show me your quantifiable evidence (since that is your standard of knowing) that says the desire to not die has any value other than mere sentiment. You can find 1,000 people who all say they don't want to die. But, that does not show that life is of more objective value than death, or that existence is somehow better than non-existence, according to your commitments. All it does it show that there exists 1,000 sentient collections of matter that prefer to stay intact. What value is that preference? What standard of "good" can you appeal to that doesn't reduce to some collection of matter?

Your sense of justice and fairness, what is it anchored to? Is it rooted in the evolutionary drive of the species? Why should this species survive? Have you looked around you lately at what this species is doing? Wouldn't it be just as easy to argue that a good bit of what this particular species brings to this celestial ball is so horrific that the advantage of its existence is at least questionable? You put yourself off as a rational person who sticks with the evidence, but I'm not sure you've sufficiently considered the evidence if you're arguing for the well-being of this particular species? We usually try to eradicate viruses.

Is there some inherent good in the human species to which you can point? You and I are simply collections of matter. What matters about us is nothing more than the matter by which we are constituted. The moment you make an appeal to what is fair and what is just and what is good, you belie the truth you say you believe. Either you are being inconsistent, or there is a standard that transends our constituent properties and sentient experience.

Now, you may not believe what I believe. But, unlike you, I am being consistent. Whether I am mistaken or not, I believe there is a God who is Love and created you and I. I believe we have value, not only by virtue of being created, but by virtue of being created in the image of the One who is Good. I get that you don't believe any of that. I get that you question the goodness of God, if such a God exists. I don't. So, when I say I appeal to that Goodness I am being consistent with what I believe.

You, on the other hand, have not followed through with the logical outcome of your own faith. I don't blame you. Absurdity lies at the end. Nonetheless, you still want to think in terms of what is right, or benefical, or good, or just. You believe there is nothing more than the physical properties of which you are aware, and yet, you still want to believe that something matters besides physical matter. Unless you're some kind of Platonist, who believes there is a transcendent good to which one can appeal, then your sentiment is an epiphenomena (or some such ad hoc tomfoolery you naturalists like to imagine) and matters no more than the grief of a rock.

Now, I'm not asking you to give your life to Jesus. But, at least give your commitments the serious reflection they deserve. And why you're reflecting, ask yourself why it matters if you reflect or not. What kind of collection of matter cares to reflect?
It´s really amazing, what all you are able to conclude to be necessary consequences from "no God, no afterlife"!
 
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you're in Heaven, with the knowledge that people you knew and loved in your mortal life aren't there, that's going to cause you anguish.

Anyone who is not in Heaven did not want to be. If I believed people could be forced to be in Heaven against their own will, that would cause me anguish. I do not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I meant 'I can't parse any of this' as in 'what you wrote is mostly gibberish'.

It´s really amazing, what all you are able to conclude to be necessary consequences from "no God, no afterlife"!

"It's gibberish" and "It's really amazing" is the best you two collections of molecules can come up with? I understand and I'm not surprised.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But if you want to, you could maybe start by clarifying what you mean by 'metaphysical commitments', and what you think mine are.

Are you a naturalist? Are you a materialist/physicalist? Are you more than your constituent parts? If, so what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

MrsFoundit

Well-Known Member
Dec 5, 2019
899
200
South
✟33,276.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"It's gibberish" and "It's really amazing" is the best you two collections of molecules can come up with? I understand and I'm not surprised.

I cannot see how gibberish or expressed amazement are any more scientific, better evidenced, or more probable and convincing than your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I cannot see how gibberish or expressed amazement are any more scientific, better evidenced, or more probable and convincing than your post.

It may be that my post is some amazing gibberish. Whatever. Mere sentiment about one's own existence isn't going to justify the claim that one should exist, or that one has a right to exist, or that one's existence is somehow "good" (whatever that means for a thinking bundle of atoms). Well being becomes nothing more than endurance through time and space that is accompanied by a sense of "I'm glad I'm not suffering." And multiplying that sentiment a billion times won't evidence goodness or value. All it will do is show that there exists a billion bundles of contiguous matter, and they're all in their feelings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh look, some questions. How hard was that?

Are you a naturalist? Are you a materialist/physicalist?

Methodological naturalist, yes. Physicalist, not necessarily. There may well be domains of existence 'beyond' nature, the material universe, and its emergent properties, but until such time as we have a means of reliably gleaning information of and about it, there is nothing to talk about. And certainly nothing to predicate a worldview on.

Are you more than your constituent parts?

Everything is. That's how emergence works. At least, at the scale we interact with every day.

If, so what?

A human.

Before you respond, take a minute to read up on emergence (especially as it relates to physics and biology) and the fallacy of composition.

It may be that my post is some amazing gibberish. Whatever. Mere sentiment about one's own existence isn't going to justify the claim that one should exist, or that one has a right to exist, or that one's existence is somehow "good" (whatever that means for a thinking bundle of atoms). Well being becomes nothing more than endurance through time and space that is accompanied by a sense of "I'm glad I'm not suffering." And multiplying that sentiment a billion times won't evidence goodness or value. All it will do is show that there exists a billion bundles of contiguous matter, and they're all in their feelings.

This is more fallacy of composition. But suppose we set that aside.

How does appealing to a god 'fix' any of this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Anyone who is not in Heaven did not want to be.

And you think that would be enough to reassure, say, a mother who will be eternally separated from her non-believing sons? Enough to cause her no stress whatsoever? A mother who has, in her mortal life, expressed anguish at the idea that her sons won't be joining her in the afterlife? Once she gets there, she'll just be able to shrug it off and say 'oh well, they didn't want to be here anyway'?

I personally don't have that low an opinion of people. Certainly not my mom, far from perfect as she is.

Also, how do you account for people who like the idea of Heaven, and want to be there, but don't believe it exists? Do they get to go to Heaven, too, just for wanting it?
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There may well be domains of existence 'beyond' nature, the material universe, and its emergent properties, but until such time as we have a means of reliably gleaning information of and about it, there is nothing to talk about.

Thank you. I figured these were your commitments, but I appreciate your stating as much.

Your moral philosophy of well being vs. harm is certainly understandable, but it is mere sentiment. I don't say that as a judgment, nor is it meant in some pejorative manner. Unless you are willing to posit some transcendent good or value, your morality is based on what you feel. The desire to endure is natural enough, but it doesn't translate into what should be. The fact that humans want to persist through time and space doesn't mean they should, or that it is even good that they do.

Or, maybe you hold that there is an evolutionary basis for your morality of well-being vs. harm, e.g. it supports the survival of the species. So what? What is so great about our species except it is the species we happen to belong to, by accident or necessity.

I understand the concept of emergence. If your position is that your sense of morality is a result of emergence, okay. That still doesn't translate into what should be. It doesn't justify the goodness or value of human existence, as if the fact of emergence explains the desire that one should be. Or, that human experience has some value past the elements from which it emerges.

I am going to assume you make value judgements all day long. You assess some things as good, better, best, worse, etc. You have plans for good things that you want for yourself and those you love. We all do. But, at the end of the day, those value judgments and those good things and those you love are merely byproducts of an unthinking physical process that, amazingly, has produced you with a sense that these things matter. I don't expect you to give up those value judgements and those desires for good things. All I really want from you is for you to admit that at the end of the day it all means nothing.

Actually, I don't want you to admit that. At least I don't want you to embrace the despair of nothingness that your commitments should reasonably entail. What I would rather hope for you, and those who think as you do, is that you would recognize that the existential loss of your commitments aren't worth the act of faith you are committed to. You may not have empirical evidence that there is some transcendent good, but your everyday experience is screaming that there is. Is it an illusion, or an insight into a better act of faith?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How do you determine the difference between an ordinary and an extraordinary claim?
By the definition of ordinary and extraordinary.

You seemed to previously be under the impression that you didn't have any beliefs. Instead of saying that you believed that the trick had a natural explanation, you would just say that you didn't believe that it had a supernatural explanation. This is what I meant by a "positive belief," since until now you seemed reluctant to admit to any beliefs at all.
I have always had a belief. But there are no beliefs that I am 100% certain of. I don't think that is possible for anyone.

In any case, you seem to have now come to the conclusion that it is justified to believe that something does not come from nothing, as long as one does not claim absolute certainty.
Correct. I have always had this conclusion.

The comparison between whether there is an odd or even number of skittles and the existence of God is completely invalid. It is entirely possible that there is an odd number of skittles in a jar, and it's also entirely possible that there's an even number. Both are possible states of affairs.

This is not the case with theism. There can't be possible states of affairs where theism is true, and others where theism is false. Unless you think that there are days when God exists, and other days when God doesn't exist, there's no reason to treat the question as if the answer were the equivalent to a coin toss.

More troubling, the skittles analogy indicates that you think there is a 50/50 chance that theism is true. If you believe it's just as likely that theism is true as that it is false, Pascal's Wager becomes a really serious issue for you, since you cannot write theism off as an unlikely state of affairs not to be taken seriously if you don't believe that there is no God.
Just forget the skittles. You are reading too much into it. The skittle analogy was about epistemology and not about the existence of a god. All I am saying with the analogy is that if I do not believe there are an even amount of skittles that does not mean I believe there are an odd number or skittles. That is it. I am not using it as any argument against theism.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You moral philosophy of well being vs. harm is certainly understandable, but it is mere sentiment. I don't say that as a judgment, nor is it meant in some pejorative manner. Unless you are willing to posit some transcendent good or value, your morality is based on what you feel. The desire to endure is natural enough, but it doesn't translate into what should be. The fact that humans want to persist through time and space doesn't mean they should, or that it is even good that they do.

Or, maybe you hold that there is an evolutionary basis for your morality of well-being vs. harm, e.g. it supports the survival of the species. So what? What is so great about our species except it is the species we happen to belong to, by accident or necessity.

The evolutionary basis would be that it simply is the case that minimizing harm and maximizing wellbeing is the best course of action for survival. We wouldn't be here if it were otherwise. But I wouldn't make the argument that this tells you anything about what 'should' be. That would be an appeal to nature fallacy, and it wouldn't get past the is/ought problem.

Speaking of which, you keep coming back to the is/ought problem, and I'm not sure what it is you think you're nailing me on by doing so. I said from the outset that value judgements are necessarily subjective, and that they won't get you past the is/ought problem. That also tells me that you think appealing to a 'god' gives you a one-up in this regard.

It doesn't. You can't name any 'is' statement purportedly made by or otherwise derived from the Biblical god, pertaining to moral behavior, and get an 'ought' from it.

I know that's highly inconvenient to your apologetics, but you're going to have to come to grips with it and try a new tactic.

I understand the concept of emergence.

It sure doesn't look like it. You are attempting to apply facts of the parts (in this case, molecules) to the whole (in this case, humans). That's a blatant fallacy of composition.

I am going to assume you make value judgements all day long. You assess some things as good, better, best, worse, etc. You have plans for good things that you want for yourself and those you love. We all do. But, at the end of the day, those value judgments and those good things and those you love are merely byproducts of an unthinking physical process that, amazingly, has produced you with a sense that these things matter. I don't expect you to give up those value judgements and those desires for good things. All I really want from you is for you to admit that at the end of the day it all means nothing.

Actually, I don't want you to admit that. At least I don't want you to embrace the despair of nothingness that your commitments should reasonably entail. What I would rather hope for you, and those who think as you do, is that you would recognize that the existential loss of your commitments aren't worth the act of faith you are committed to. You may not have empirical evidence that there is some transcendent good, but your everyday experience is screaming that there is. Is it an illusion, or an insight into a better act of faith?

You're confused again.

You are the one who purports to derive meaning and value from God. Therefor, it is your life that is valueless and meaningless in a universe without him. Kindly do not project your brand of theistic nihilism on to other people.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: quatona
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
"It's gibberish" and "It's really amazing" is the best you two collections of molecules can come up with? I understand and I'm not surprised.
Well, at least these are short and accurate statements - as opposed to your endless ramblings about positions that you assume us to hold.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That also tells me that you think appealing to a 'god' gives you a one-up in this regard.

No need to appeal to God. I only posited some transcendent good, something beyond your mere sentiment. There are lot of options out there, besides belief in the caricature of God you think I believe in. I'm not recommending God to you, only the possibility that goodness is real.

Your stated unwillingness to transcend the is/ought problem is betrayed by your everyday experiencing of making judgements about what is good, what should be, what should not be. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of these judgments go way beyond what we need to survive. Your love for others, your being appalled by horrendous evils that have no immediate effect on your survival, your apprehension of beauty, your recognition of truth points to more than mere survival. Or, if your ability to make judgments is merely the result of an evolutionary drive to survive, then all of those judgments you make everyday are just superfluous additions to your daily act of survival. They mean nothing.

You don't have to posit the existence of God to recognize that life means more to you than mere survival, and yet you have no way of accounting for that. All you can say is that your many value judgments are superfluous activity you engage in that help give you a sense of meaning and purpose, but deep down you know that all you're doing is surviving until you cease to exist.

Or, you can give up the illusion of certainty, and take a step of faith that says things matter and they matter for reasons you don't understand. That's not belief in God, nor is it belief in some transcendent good. But, it's honest. And who knows, maybe you will find something that has been there all along.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, at least these are short and accurate statements - as opposed to your endless ramblings about positions that you assume us to hold.

The metaphysical commitments I was assuming about one of you has been verified as correct. What are yours?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your stated unwillingness to transcend the is/ought problem is betrayed by your everyday experiencing of making judgements about what is good, what should be, what should not be. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of these judgments go way beyond what we need to survive. Your love for others, your being appalled by horrendous evils that have no immediate effect on your survival, your apprehension of beauty, your recognition of truth points to more than mere survival. Or, if your ability to make judgments is merely the result of an evolutionary drive to survive, then all of those judgments you make everyday are just superfluous additions to your daily act of survival. They mean nothing.

It's not an 'unwillingness'. It's simply the case that I have never seen any means of derive an ought from an is. If you think that you are able to, you are welcome to try. I'd be delighted to see the first successful attempt in the history of human thought.

Because at this point, your critique of my moral philosophy appears to boil down to 'yeah, but maybe you can get an ought from an is'. OK. And.....?

Finish the thought. Don't just reword and restate it over and over.

You don't have to posit the existence of God to recognize that life means more to you than mere survival, and yet you have no way of accounting for that. All you can say is that your many value judgments are superfluous activity you engage in that help give you a sense of meaning and purpose, but deep down you know that all you're doing is surviving until you cease to exist.

When did you first discover your magical mind-reading powers?

Or, you can give up the illusion of certainty

What illusion of certainty? Your track record of parsing out what it is you think I believe is quite dismal, so answer carefully this time.

The metaphysical commitments I was assuming about one of you has been verified as correct. What are yours?

Are you going to clarify what you mean by 'metaphysical commitments' some time?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Because at this point, your critique of my moral philosophy appears to boil down to 'yeah, but maybe you can get an ought from an is'. OK. And.....?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying your naturalism only allows for mere sentiment (i.e. your subjective experience) as a basis for your moral philosophy, whatever that might be. But that basis does not capture the reality of human experience, which is events, experiences, relationships, etc. have a value that goes beyond our subjective tastes or sentiment. So, something is missing, something that can't be accounted for unless you are willing to embrace a richer metaphysic (e.g. one that at least allows for some transendent good besides how you might feel about things).

Could I be wrong in this assessment? Of course, but you haven't given anything else to go on. Maybe you are a moral naturalist and believe that there are moral facts that are part of the natural "furniture" of the world and that are mind independant. That would get you past mere sentiment, but then you would have to give an account of what, exactly, are these natural/moral facts. I don't expect you to be able to give such an account. But, your willingness to admit to moral facts would definitely be a step in the right direction. That would match the human experience in a way that mere sentiment just doesn't.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.