Does morality exist without God?

[Upisoft]

Nothing exists without God

Quite a wild conjecture. Dare to prove it?

 

[rjc34]

Nothing exists without God

Really? Prove it.

 

[Niels]

Quite a wild conjecture. Dare to prove it?

Really? Prove it.

Prove what? God is that without which nothing exists. If we're not talking about that without which nothing exists, then we're not talking about God. We could get into a debate about whether Jesus is God, but that's another matter entirely. I can't prove to you that he is. You must arrive at that conclusion yourself.

My point was that we all flow from the same source. Morality should be as accessible to you as it is to me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Prove what? God is that without which nothing exists.

So you say. You can't simply define yourself correct. We looking for something more than this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Niels]

So you say. You can't simply define yourself correct. We looking for something more than this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In that case, I refer you to the parts of my post that you didn't quote:

... If we're not talking about that without which nothing exists, then we're not talking about God. We could get into a debate about whether Jesus is God, but that's another matter entirely. I can't prove to you that he is. You must arrive at that conclusion yourself.

My point was that we all flow from the same source. Morality should be as accessible to you as it is to me.

 

[rjc34]

Prove what? God is that without which nothing exists. If we're not talking about that without which nothing exists, then we're not talking about God. We could get into a debate about whether Jesus is God, but that's another matter entirely. I can't prove to you that he is. You must arrive at that conclusion yourself.

This still runs on the assumption that there must be something that without which nothing exists, which the rest of us don't agree with.

My point was that we all flow from the same source. Morality should be as accessible to you as it is to me.

Morality flows from human empathy, and since we're all human, we all have access to it. (Of course many throughout history have deluded themselves and lost touch with their natural morality, which has caused them to do horrendous things.)

 

[variant]

Prove what? God is that without which nothing exists. If we're not talking about that without which nothing exists, then we're not talking about God. We could get into a debate about whether Jesus is God, but that's another matter entirely. I can't prove to you that he is. You must arrive at that conclusion yourself.

If your suggesting worshiping the strong force, your idea that God is required for a universe would be an equiviocation.

You can not argue persuasively via catagory error.

My point was that we all flow from the same source. Morality should be as accessible to you as it is to me.

This also requires support.

Nothing exists without God

And again this requires support.

 

[Niels]

This still runs on the assumption that there must be something that without which nothing exists, which the rest of us don't agree with.

Do you think there would be existence without reality? If not, then you think there is something without which nothing exists.

Many theists define God in a similar manner as you might define reality. Feel free to disagree that it's God, but you will need to know that in order to understand my point of view.

Morality flows from human empathy, and since we're all human, we all have access to it. (Of course many throughout history have deluded themselves and lost touch with their natural morality, which has caused them to do horrendous things.)

Although I agree for the most part, not every individual is naturally inclined to the same level of moral behavior. One's inherent sense of morality can differ greatly, and not necessarily along religious lines.

If your suggesting worshiping the strong force, your idea that God is required for a universe would be an equiviocation.

I'm just calling it as I see it.

Please explain what you mean by "strong force", why worship is relevant to your point.

You can not argue persuasively via catagory error.

I'm simply sharing my views. For God to be "The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end", the term "God" necessarily refers to that without which nothing exists. Anything less fails to meet the criteria.

This also requires support etc.

You apparently define God differently... perhaps like a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something along those lines. Do my thoughts only count if I support something silly like that? If so, I'm not going to waste my time.

It just bothers me when fellow believers claim that nonbelievers can't be moral. My intent was to address their views rather than yours. They are likely starting from the point of view that everything is from God.

 

[Upisoft]

Do you think there would be existence without reality? If not, then you think there is something without which nothing exists.
Many theists define God in a similar manner as you might define reality.

Reality is reality and guess what, we have a word for it. Yes, it is "reality". If you think that you have to call it "God", then I will agree that by your definition God exists. But still, I have a word for it and forgive me if I continue to use it. Nor I'll start worshiping it.
BTW, if your God is nothing more than the reality, why you want to play word games?

 

[rjc34]

Do you think there would be existence without reality? If not, then you think there is something without which nothing exists.

Nice word games. Reality is what exists, and can be demonstrated to exist.

Many theists define God in a similar manner as you might define reality. Feel free to disagree that it's God, but you will need to know that in order to understand my point of view.

Now we're getting into pantheism... The problem I have with this view is that it takes the anthropomorphic view of God described in the bible, and throws it out for some sort of mystical 'timeless, spaceless and eternal being'.

Although I agree for the most part, not every individual is naturally inclined to the same level of moral behavior. One's inherent sense of morality can differ greatly, and not necessarily along religious lines.

And that's why society has some basic moral standards codified into law that everyone must follow.

You apparently define God differently... perhaps like a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something along those lines. Do my thoughts only count if I support something silly like that? If so, I'm not going to waste my time.

No, we define God like he is anthropomorphically described in the Bible. If you want to throw all that out that's fine. I find a lot of apologists these days use their arguments for god to support some sort of deistic/pantheistic ethereal god, rather than Yahweh.

It just bothers me when fellow believers claim that nonbelievers can't be moral. My intent was to address their views rather than yours. They are likely starting from the point of view that everything is from God.

What's more scary is the fact some Christians actually say that if they didn't have God they'd be out in the streets killing and raping!

 

[Niels]

Reality is reality and guess what, we have a word for it. Yes, it is "reality". If you think that you have to call it "God", then I will agree that by your definition God exists. But still, I have a word for it and forgive me if I continue to use it. Nor I'll start worshiping it.
BTW, if your God is nothing more than the reality, why you want to play word games?

I hear where you're coming from, but I'm not a pantheist. I make a distinction between God and that which is of God. Panentheism is closer to the mark. Then again, isms and ists are arbitrary distinctions that only go so far.

Nice word games. Reality is what exists, and can be demonstrated to exist.




Now we're getting into pantheism... The problem I have with this view is that it takes the anthropomorphic view of God described in the bible, and throws it out for some sort of mystical 'timeless, spaceless and eternal being'.



And that's why society has some basic moral standards codified into law that everyone must follow.




No, we define God like he is anthropomorphically described in the Bible. If you want to throw all that out that's fine. I find a lot of apologists these days use their arguments for god to support some sort of deistic/pantheistic ethereal god, rather than Yahweh.

It seems to me that God is described in anthropomorphic terms so that we can at least partially understand him. If all of God's facets were described in detail, it would probably would go over our heads. For all I know, much of it might be in the form of numbers or symbols representing things that we haven't discovered yet. I should add that the word "yet" may be a bit optimistic on my part. Can human beings, with our finite minds, actually achieve a total understanding of all that there is? Even if we can't, reality is clearly more than what we know. DNA existed long before it was discovered. It was no less real millions of years ago than it is today.



Here are a few things that lead me to believe that the God of the Bible is God:

- "In the beginning was the Logos, the logos was with God and the Logos was God." - John 1:1

- The idea of God being the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" as I mentioned earlier.

- References to God as "I am". What else simply is?

- Personal experience, seeing positive changes in the lives of people who actively try to follow what they read in scripture etc.


I have an innate sense that there is a Creator, some kind of hyperintelligent creative force behind the universe. Although the analogy isn't perfect, I see evolution etc. as comparable to a seed growing into a mature plant. As wonderful and fascinating as it is, it's never struck me as a valid substitute for God.

What's more scary is the fact some Christians actually say that if they didn't have God they'd be out in the streets killing and raping!

That is a scary thought! However, some people are prone to murder and rape. If God's Word helps a few of them turn their lives around, so they don't engage in such horrific activities, then I'm all for it.

 

[rjc34]

It seems to me that God is described in anthropomorphic terms so that we can at least partially understand him. If all of God's facets were described in detail, it would probably would go over our heads. For all I know, much of it might be in the form of numbers or symbols representing things that we haven't discovered yet. I should add that the word "yet" may be a bit optimistic on my part. Can human beings, with our finite minds, actually achieve a total understanding of all that there is? Even if we can't, reality is clearly more than what we know. DNA existed long before it was discovered. It was no less real millions of years ago than it is today.

Which begs the question... why presuppose that something exists if we haven't shown it to exist yet?

Here are a few things that lead me to believe that the God of the Bible is God:

- "In the beginning was the Logos, the logos was with God and the Logos was God." - John 1:1

- The idea of God being the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" as I mentioned earlier.

- References to God as "I am". What else simply is?

Quoting scripture won't help your case until you can show that scripture is valid evidence or was divinely inspired, etc.

- Personal experience, seeing positive changes in the lives of people who actively try to follow what they read in scripture etc.

Is there any thing that religion and faith can do that cannot be accomplished by purely secular means?

I have an innate sense that there is a Creator, some kind of hyperintelligent creative force behind the universe.

You analogy doesn't work because anyone could claim they have an innate sense of anything. What leads you to believe there's some sort of hyperintelligent creative force behind the universe? Perhaps the fact that in 5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy is going to collide with ours and cause chaos and havoc with our galaxy? Or perhaps that we don't know whether our sun will explode first and completely obliterate the earth.

Although the analogy isn't perfect, I see evolution etc. as comparable to a seed growing into a mature plant. As wonderful and fascinating as it is, it's never struck me as a valid substitute for God.

Probably because it's not trying to be anything other than a direct description of reality and how it functions.

That is a scary thought! However, some people are prone to murder and rape. If God's Word helps a few of them turn their lives around, so they don't engage in such horrific activities, then I'm all for it.

Yes, some peoples minds are broken, but could not all that you describe be accomplished through solely secular means as well?

 

[Niels]

Which begs the question... why presuppose that something exists if we haven't shown it to exist yet?

Although I basically define God as that without which nothing exists, I don't claim to have a complete understanding of God.

Quoting scripture won't help your case until you can show that scripture is valid evidence or was divinely inspired, etc.

Of course not! You've misread my intent. That passage aligns with my concept of God, and therefore helped persuade *me*.

Is there any thing that religion and faith can do that cannot be accomplished by purely secular means?

Faith and religion address the spiritual side of things. The idea that there is a greater meaning to existence than the purely materialistic. If you are content with the purely materialistic, then good for you. Not everybody is satisfied with that. Not even all atheists.

You analogy doesn't work because anyone could claim they have an innate sense of anything. What leads you to believe there's some sort of hyperintelligent creative force behind the universe? Perhaps the fact that in 5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy is going to collide with ours and cause chaos and havoc with our galaxy? Or perhaps that we don't know whether our sun will explode first and completely obliterate the earth.

Feel free to reach your own conclusions.

What leads me to believe that there is a hyperintelligent creative force behind the universe? Oh, I don't know... things like mathematics, the way that elements interact with each other etc. The Sun will die, but that's a just part of creation. Could natural laws have been different, and work in different ways than they do now? Maybe. Either way, they would still suggest a Creator to me.

Probably because it's not trying to be anything other than a direct description of reality and how it functions.

Correct. Evolution is as much of a threat to theism as gravity, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, some peoples minds are broken, but could not all that you describe be accomplished through solely secular means as well?

I won't say that it's impossible, but I don't know. As long as those solutions aren't an affront to basic human dignity, I'm open to those as well. (Edit: Then again, what's "solely secular" if God is that without which nothing exists?)

 

[Eudaimonist]

If we're not talking about that without which nothing exists, then we're not talking about God.

You might define that as God, but I wouldn't. What you are calling God, I would simply call physical reality. This is why I didn't reply to that quoted material. It's not an argument, but simply a way of naming.

But I personally don't go for such ground of being style arguments. I'll grant that the complex may be dependent on the existence of its parts, but as far as I can tell every entity exists in its own right. It doesn't need anything external to itself to prop it up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Niels]

You might define that as God, but I wouldn't. What you are calling God, I would simply call physical reality. This is why I didn't reply to that quoted material. It's not an argument, but simply a way of naming.

But I personally don't go for such ground of being style arguments. I'll grant that the complex may be dependent on the existence of its parts, but as far as I can tell every entity exists in its own right. It doesn't need anything external to itself to prop it up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Fair enough. I often think these arguments boil down to how one looks at reality. Although we may not see eye to eye, I still enjoy discussing such things. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

For what it's worth, I also appreciate how you conclude your replies with "eudaimonia". It brings a welcome note of respectfulness and positivity to these threads.

 

[quatona]

God is that without which nothing exists.

It´s certainly off-topic (and belongs in the Philosophy forum rather E&M), but since you´ve given this definition:

I must admit I have some issues with discussing on the ground of this definition.

1. As it reads there it actually doesn´t tell me anything of information value. It´s basically empty. It could be anything. It doesn´t even have to be an entity of sorts.

2. This definition is a huge "I don´t know" in disguise. It doesn´t even attempt to answer any of the existential questions that theism pretends to answer - it merely rewords them in a positive way.
E.g.
"What´s the cause of existence (our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of [...])"? - "That without which nothing exists." That´s no progress.
"Where does morality come from?" - "From that without which nothing exists." That´s not an answer, that´s more like a tautology.

3. Coming from a self-professing Christian, it strikes me as intellectually dishonest (please don´t take this personally). The point of a religion is actually to give positive answers to these questions, and to go beyond such a definition that´s generic to the point of emptiness. If you are a Christian, I don´t believe you that that´s your definition of "God". After all, you are calling "TWWNE" a "He", and that already comes with a lot of implications that go much further. You quote from the bible. Etc. etc.
If "TWWNE" were really your God-definition you could call yourself pretty much anything (Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, Jew, even naturalist...), because all these accept the idea that there´s "TWWNE".

4. and finally: "There exists something without which nothing exists" is a paradox. A category error. If "God" exists (belongs to the group of that which exists) "God" logically can´t be "TWWNE".

 

[Niels]

It´s certainly off-topic (and belongs in the Philosophy forum rather E&M), but since you´ve given this definition:

I must admit I have some issues with discussing on the ground of this definition.

Sorry if my post led to a deviation from the topic. If I hadn't included the first part, then my reply would have been a more basic statement that people are capable of morality regardless of their religious views (or lack thereof). If I continue to post on this subject, it will be in a more appropriate forum.

1. As it reads there it actually doesn´t tell me anything of information value. It´s basically empty. It could be anything. It doesn´t even have to be an entity of sorts.

And yet it is perhaps God's most defining trait. We clearly aren't discussing the same thing unless this characteristic is acknowledged. It's one thing to say that the Abrahamic God isn't God. It's quite another to neglect something so basic.

When I was a child, I wondered who made God if God made the universe. My question was answered with the concept of that which *is* the beginning and the end. In other words, that without which nothing exists. It was probably the first time that I grasped the idea of what is meant by "God".

2. This definition is a huge "I don´t know" in disguise. It doesn´t even attempt to answer any of the existential questions that theism pretends to answer - it merely rewords them in a positive way.
E.g.
"What´s the cause of existence (our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of [...])"? - "That without which nothing exists." That´s no progress.
"Where does morality come from?" - "From that without which nothing exists." That´s not an answer, that´s more like a tautology.

Tautology or not, it's a reason why I find fault with the idea that morality exists somehow apart from God. If you are looking for a more materialistic answer, I would say that it probably appeared when early man formed social groups. Those who could rely on each other were more likely to survive than those who could not.

3. Coming from a self-professing Christian, it strikes me as intellectually dishonest (please don´t take this personally). The point of a religion is actually to give positive answers to these questions, and to go beyond such a definition that´s generic to the point of emptiness. If you are a Christian, I don´t believe you that that´s your definition of "God". After all, you are calling "TWWNE" a "He", and that already comes with a lot of implications that go much further. You quote from the bible. Etc. etc.
If "TWWNE" were really your God-definition you could call yourself pretty much anything (Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, Jew, even naturalist...), because all these accept the idea that there´s "TWWNE".

I always figured that the point of religion is one's relationship with the infinite. The subjective relationship with one's creator, or something along those lines.

4. and finally: "There exists something without which nothing exists" is a paradox. A category error. If "God" exists (belongs to the group of that which exists) "God" logically can´t be "TWWNE".

Not unless God is existence. Of course, this is where one might ask "Why not call existence existence?" My answer would be that the difference is largely contextual. Besides, calling existence God would probably irk those who have concluded that God doesn't exist for whatever reason. I have no desire to confuse others, let alone rub them the wrong way. I will continue to use these terms in the manner that is most appropriate for the situation at hand.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

ok



atheists ..

ie scoffers will know the truth eventually..

Sorry if my post led to a deviation from the topic. If I hadn't included the first part, then my reply would have been a more basic statement that people are capable of morality regardless of their religious views (or lack thereof). If I continue to post on this subject, it will be in a more appropriate forum.

And yet it is perhaps God's most defining trait. We clearly aren't discussing the same thing unless this characteristic is acknowledged. It's one thing to say that the Abrahamic God isn't God. It's quite another to neglect something so basic.

When I was a child, I wondered who made God if God made the universe. My question was answered with the concept of that which *is* the beginning and the end. In other words, that without which nothing exists. It was probably the first time that I grasped the idea of what is meant by "God".

Tautology or not, it's a reason why I find fault with the idea that morality exists somehow apart from God. If you are looking for a more materialistic answer, I would say that it probably appeared when early man formed social groups. Those who could rely on each other were more likely to survive than those who could not.

I always figured that the point of religion is one's relationship with the infinite. The subjective relationship with one's creator, or something along those lines.

Not unless God is existence. Of course, this is where one might ask "Why not call existence existence?" My answer would be that the difference is largely contextual. Besides, calling existence God would probably irk those who have concluded that God doesn't exist for whatever reason. I have no desire to confuse others, let alone rub them the wrong way. I will continue to use these terms in the manner that is most appropriate for the situation at hand.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Why would it?
OR/
Why would it not?
There is secular morality and there is God's morality.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 56: 8-9


we can treat people who we can see with respect n treat GOD with disarray and

how can we treat each other with no love whom we see daily but loves GOD whom we can not

vice versa ,,,...

Yes, morals exists without a god or gods.

 

[quatona]

Sorry if my post led to a deviation from the topic. If I hadn't included the first part, then my reply would have been a more basic statement that people are capable of morality regardless of their religious views (or lack thereof). If I continue to post on this subject, it will be in a more appropriate forum.

I didn´t mean to criticize you. My remark was rather a pre-emptive apology for isolating and responding this (if taken out of context) off-topic phrase.

And yet it is perhaps God's most defining trait. We clearly aren't discussing the same thing unless this characteristic is acknowledged. It's one thing to say that the Abrahamic God isn't God. It's quite another to neglect something so basic.

Agreed - except: "TWWNE" isn´t a trait exactly.

When I was a child, I wondered who made God if God made the universe. My question was answered with the concept of that which *is* the beginning and the end. In other words, that without which nothing exists.

I don´t agree with the "in other words". I don´t think those two phrases are synonymous.

It was probably the first time that I grasped the idea of what is meant by "God".

Meant by whom?

Tautology or not, it's a reason why I find fault with the idea that morality exists somehow apart from God.

Sure. If you define "God" as "TWWNE" then nothing exists apart of "God", by definition.

If you are looking for a more materialistic answer, I would say that it probably appeared when early man formed social groups.

I´m not exactly looking for a materialistic answer - if anything, I would be looking for an answer that tells me more than "morality exists because it exists".

Not unless God is existence. Of course, this is where one might ask "Why not call existence existence?"

That may be an interesting question. However, my issue with this is a different one. If you
a. define "God" as TWWNE and
b. call existence "God",
you get "existence is that without which nothing exists". That´s word salad.

On another note, in an above paragraph you spoke of God as "the creator".
Existence doesn´t create - existence is the state of that which exists.
IOW, at every corner I sense that "TWWNE" - although it´s certainly a nice soundbite and almost meaningless phrase and therefore easier to defend - does not really cover the idea of "God" you are talking about, and even conflicts with other parts of your concept.