Arguments for the Existence of God

DogmaHunter · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
You're still relying on your faulty faculties to determine that what the tech is telling you is actually true. So either our faculties are too faulty to even determine what's true or we can actually determine what's true despite the faults in our faculties.

I don't think I ever stated that our faculties are "too faulty to even determine what's true", now did I?

In fact, I explictly stated that they are well enough, but not perfect and flawless. It's well known that humans are very prone to reasoning error. One only has to look at the many different forms of gullibility and superstition. From jihadists all the way to the person who thinks horoscopes are worth paying for.

You have a habbit of only thinking in extremes, imo.

The point I was making, which you cleverly ignored by insinuating the above strawman, was that we have developed ways to counter or at least minimize our biases and faulty faculties. Because we are actually aware of these shortcomings.

Which is also why, as I said, physical evidence always trumps testimony.

I think the latter is true, otherwise why even try to determine what's true?

I have to question the sincerity and/or motivations of the person who needs to ask "why try to find out what is true?".

O well....

Consider crossing a highway on foot, while not knowing the truth about cars and highways.

Archaeopteryx · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Because meaning vanishes when all meaningful beings cease to exist. Thus my questions:

But it hasn't vanished. It hasn't been erased from the lives of those who've lived. You acknowledged already that they lived meaningful lives.

Eudaimonist · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
It doesn't matter that they existed in the past

It matters to the beings that had lived in the past.

what matters is the reality where there are no meaning giving beings at all because they've all died.

Matters to whom?

It would be a meaningless reality

Not our problem.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Tinker Grey · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Because meaning vanishes when all meaningful beings cease to exist. Thus my questions:

Will a meaningless reality exist when all meaning giving beings die?

If so, why does what I do now matter or have meaning if the end result is meaningless?

It matters because it matters now. It's really rather simple.

HitchSlap · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Okay, now answer these questions:

Sure, but I expect you to answer mine in return.

Quid pro quo.

Chriliman said:
Will a meaningless reality exist when all meaning giving beings die?

I think you just answered your own question.

Chriliman said:
If so,

As you just pointed out.

Chriliman said:
why does what I do now

Because "meaning giving beings" are still around.

Chriliman said:
matter or have meaning if the end result is meaningless?

Because it only has meaning because we're here to say so.

bhsmte · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Because meaning vanishes when all meaningful beings cease to exist. Thus my questions:

Will a meaningless reality exist when all meaning giving beings die?

If so, why does what I do now matter or have meaning if the end result is meaningless?

Clearly, you have no understanding of basic human psychology.

Ana the Ist · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
It doesn't matter that they existed in the past, what matters is the reality where there are no meaning giving beings at all because they've all died.

It would be a meaningless reality and it's where reality is headed without God who gives meaning and life forever.

If you're asking if there would still be "meaning" in anything if all life died...everywhere...yes, there would be nothing to give anything "meaning".

Chriliman · Jun 15, 2016

Ana the Ist said:
If you're asking if there would still be "meaning" in anything if all life died...everywhere...yes, there would be nothing to give anything "meaning".

Do you believe that reality will happen in the distant future at some point? Even though that reality can't be known or experienced by anyone?

Ana the Ist · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Do you believe that reality will happen in the distant future at some point? Even though that reality can't be known or experienced by anyone?

I don't know, it's certainly possible...if you look far enough into the past there was a time when nothing in the universe was alive to give anything meaning.

ToddNotTodd · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Do you believe that reality will happen in the distant future at some point? Even though that reality can't be known or experienced by anyone?

Perhaps you should look up the word reality and revise your sentence

HitchSlap · Jun 15, 2016

Chriliman said:
Do you believe that reality will happen in the distant future at some point? Even though that reality can't be known or experienced by anyone?

Billions of years of reality occurred before you were born, and will occur after you die.

Mediaeval · Jun 15, 2016

Ana the Ist said:
Here's a statement from Louise M Anthony, a Harvard grad Professor of Philosophy...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/?_r=0

If you care to read it, not only does she think atheists are moral and possess morality...but it needs no theistic sources whatsoever.

Now that we've both shown that philosophers have opinions on the morality of atheists...can you actually make an argument for your position? Or do you need to have others make it for you because it's subject matter that's simply over your head?

Thanks for the link. As expected, the writer took her own personal preference as a moral standard for granted and hoped everybody would agree. If I had to guess, I would say that she is still influenced by the morality of her Catholic upbringing and wants to try to preserve the fruit without the root. Her case for atheistic morality began suspended in mid-air, for she simply assumed that there is a moral imperative that should be recognized. But who says? And if so, who or what defines what is morally good and evil? Plato, whom she mentioned, was apparently OK with infanticide and slavery. But his personal preference cancels out the writer’s expressed personal preference, for one opinion has as much authority as another, which is to say, none at all vis-a-vis another person. Also, the digression on the easily-answered Euthyphro dilemma missed her target. Her use of that false dilemma was either naive and, as a paid philosopher she should have known better, or it was deliberately deceptive to make a pretense of intellectual substance. But her article was not totally useless. It serves as a reminder that self-evident objective morality exists and that some atheists still want to justify it on the only plausible basis available to them, i.e., personal preference, in spite of the fact that it cannot be done.

Dave Ellis · Jun 15, 2016

Mediaeval said:
Thanks for the link. As expected, the writer took her own personal preference as a moral standard for granted and hoped everybody would agree.

Don't you do the same thing?

Mediaeval said:
If I had to guess, I would say that she is still influenced by the morality of her Catholic upbringing and wants to try to preserve the fruit without the root.

Why?

Mediaeval said:
Her case for atheistic morality began suspended in mid-air, for she simply assumed that there is a moral imperative that should be recognized. But who says?

Why should there be a supreme authority that dictates that to us in order for us to assume moral imperative?

Mediaeval said:
And if so, who or what defines what is morally good and evil?

The consequences of our actions do.

Mediaeval said:
Plato, whom she mentioned, was apparently OK with infanticide and slavery. But his personal preference cancels out the writer’s expressed personal preference, for one opinion has as much authority as another, which is to say, none at all vis-a-vis another person.

That's fallacious, not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are backed with evidence and reasoning, other are not.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think slavery and infanticide is wrong?

Mediaeval said:
Also, the digression on the easily-answered Euthyphro dilemma missed her target. Her use of that false dilemma was either naive and, as a paid philosopher she should have known better, or it was deliberately deceptive to make a pretense of intellectual substance.

The Euthyphro is not a false dilemma.

Mediaeval said:
But her article was not totally useless. It serves as a reminder that self-evident objective morality exists and that some atheists still want to justify it on the only plausible basis available to them, i.e., personal preference, in spite of the fact that it cannot be done.

How does it serve as a reminder that "self-evident objective" morality exists? She wrote something you disagree with, therefore it proves your point? That's a non sequitur.

Personal preference doesn't matter, consequential ethicism is what we use.

Ana the Ist · Jun 15, 2016

Mediaeval said:
Thanks for the link. As expected, the writer took her own personal preference as a moral standard for granted and hoped everybody would agree. If I had to guess, I would say that she is still influenced by the morality of her Catholic upbringing and wants to try to preserve the fruit without the root.

Lol and what are you basing this guess on? At least you realize that it's nothing more than a guess...

Her case for atheistic morality began suspended in mid-air, for she simply assumed that there is a moral imperative that should be recognized. But who says?

She just did...didn't you read the article?

And if so, who or what defines what is morally good and evil?

People do...people always have. That's really the only part of morality that's "self-evident".

Plato, whom she mentioned, was apparently OK with infanticide and slavery. But his personal preference cancels out the writer’s expressed personal preference, for one opinion has as much authority as another, which is to say, none at all vis-a-vis another person.

Authority and morality are two different subjects. If you believe that your god holds some "authority" over morality...he sure doesn't enforce it. You should tell him to get on that.

Also, the digression on the easily-answered Euthyphro dilemma missed her target. Her use of that false dilemma was either naive and, as a paid philosopher she should have known better, or it was deliberately deceptive to make a pretense of intellectual substance. But her article was not totally useless. It serves as a reminder that self-evident objective morality exists and that some atheists still want to justify it on the only plausible basis available to them, i.e., personal preference, in spite of the fact that it cannot be done.

Morality needs not be justified anymore than the fact that I like vanilla ice cream needs "justified". I like what I like...as do you.

ToddNotTodd · Jun 15, 2016

Mediaeval said:
Also, the digression on the easily-answered Euthyphro dilemma missed her target. Her use of that false dilemma was either naive and, as a paid philosopher she should have known better, or it was deliberately deceptive to make a pretense of intellectual substance.

It's one thing to say the Euthyphro Dilemma is easily answerable. It's another to actually answer it...

Ana the Ist · Jun 15, 2016

ToddNotTodd said:
It's one thing to say the Euthyphro Dilemma is easily answerable. It's another to actually answer it...

I'm sure he's looking for a quote on that....

DogmaHunter · Jun 16, 2016

Chriliman said:
Will a meaningless reality exist when all meaning giving beings die?

If beings give meaning to reality, then that means that reality itself is without meaning on its own. As in, "meaning" is not an intrinic aspect of reality by itself. It's instead beings that give/impose meaning unto it. Which obviously won't happen if the beings are not there.

It seems that the way you phrased your question, it is answering itself.
It's very loaded language.

Perhaps you care to rephrase in such a way that it is actually answerable and that it actually makes some kind of sense.

If so, why does what I do now matter or have meaning if the end result is meaningless?

What you do now, matters now. Some of what you do may have a radiating effect into the future, like for example the things that Newton, Einstein and Farraday did.

But generally, no, what you do now most likely won't matter a billion years from now.
Why is that a problem?

DogmaHunter · Jun 16, 2016

Chriliman said:
Because meaning vanishes when all meaningful beings cease to exist.

In other words.... meaning is a subjective concept that only makes sense when you have subjective beings who tend to infuse meaning into things.

Super. I agree.

Chriliman · Jun 16, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
In other words.... meaning is a subjective concept that only makes sense when you have subjective beings who tend to infuse meaning into things.

Super. I agree.

If all subjective beings agree that life is good, how is that not a recognized objective goodness of life?

Keep in mind that we don't actually know if there was ever a time when no subjective being existed, you'd have to know all things in order to know that, but if you knew all things then you'd be considered God.

bhsmte · Jun 16, 2016

Chriliman said:
If all subjective beings agree that life is good, how is that not a recognized objective goodness of life?

Keep in mind that we don't actually know if there was ever a time when no subjective being existed, you'd have to know all things in order to know that, but if you knew all things then you'd be considered God.

Good luck getting subjective beings to agree 100%.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Code Monkey

Wanderer

I believe in life before death!

Wanderer

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Aggressively serene!

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Aggressively serene!

Iconoclast

PROUDLY PRIMATE

baptizatus sum

Contributor

Aggressively serene!

Iconoclast

Aggressively serene!

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency