Does morality exist without God?

[ivebeenshown]

If you're saying that God is (and only is, otherwise other positions become possible) the act of existence then why call it God? Why give it a name? We have a perfectly decent noun already: existence.

Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.

Also, what do you mean when you say 'otherwise other positions become possible'?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.

Great. I assert instead that existence is the natural cause of all being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

So?

So it´s a trivial point based on a redefinition of the keyterm - a point that doesn´t have anything to do with the implication of the OP.

 

[razeontherock]

That's my point exactly. God is unknown, so you cannot logically say that he is the only possible (note that I say possible, not actual) source of existence. Other potential origins of existence also exist, so saying "existence without God" is not nonsensical.

You're not grasping the abstract nature of "God" as a term. You keep trying to use it as a concrete term, and it's just not. The actual source of existence, is God. Whatever that turns out to be, which as of yet, is still unknown. You really can't argue against that, all you can do is refuse to use the term as it is meant.

Saying that God is existence is, considering what the Bible says and that fact that existence cannot logically be conscious, because if consciousness exists, then it can't be the process of existence (because the process of existence allows it to exists). God cannot logically be the process of existing.

IBS was the one trying to say these things, not me. I think Mark soundly debunked them in one brief post. I do wonder though, if he got these ideas since converting to RC, or if he got them on his own?

 

[razeontherock]

To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.

Whoah, that was deep. NOT! Tautology 101, and as the atheists have said, it trivializes God.

 

[razeontherock]

Great. I assert instead that existence is the natural cause of all being.

Nope. Existence is the STATE of being! I is, you am, and he she and / or it be

 

[ivebeenshown]

Great. I assert instead that existence is the natural cause of all being.

How is it natural?

Whoah, that was deep. NOT! Tautology 101, and as the atheists have said, it trivializes God.

Look back at the entire context. I was asked "why call the act of existing 'God' when we have a noun already". The whole point of what I have been saying is related to the title of this thread.

If God is 'the act of existing', then no, morality cannot exist without God. That is all. Simple.

 

[Gracchus]

If God is 'the act of existing', then no, morality cannot exist without God. That is all. Simple.

And if God does not exist and morality does (?) then the answer is obviously yes.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Saying that God is existence is, considering what the Bible says and that fact that existence cannot logically be conscious, because if consciousness exists, then it can't be the process of existence (because the process of existence allows it to exists). God cannot logically be the process of existing. You can say God caused everything else to exist, but you cannot call God "existence".

What you state would indeed logically follow if existence and consciousness were not one and the same in being.

However, it may be that the act of existing and the act of perceiving are both identical.

Is there anything which necessitates that existence and consciousness are not one and the same in being?

 

[razeontherock]

What you state would indeed logically follow if existence and consciousness were not one and the same in being.

Is there anything which necessitates that existence and consciousness are not one and the same in being?

A rock. You know, like what Charlie Brown gets on Halloween.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How is it natural?

It wouldn't be above nature. Nature is all about "acts of existing" -- that is what every entity does by nature.

As Aristotle had pointed out, to be is to be something. Being something is existing. There is no separating these two. Ground of being arguments are entirely needless, since existing is part of what it is to be a specific natural entity.

If God is 'the act of existing', then no, morality cannot exist without God. That is all. Simple.

And if 'the act of existing' does not have to involve a God or be called a God, then morality can exist without God.

"God" typically refers to some supernatural being which is independent of and source of all other beings. By saying that existence is "God", I am affirming that existence possesses those three properties, one of which is clearly incompatible with a naturalistic outlook.

Yes, but saying that existence is "God" is a pure matter of taste on your part. It's not necessary.

In fact, I have yet to see anyone effectively demonstrate that existence is natural.

What would you accept as a justification?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nope. Existence is the STATE of being! I is, you am, and he she and / or it be

Existence could certainly be described as a state of being, and I have probably used those words before many times, but how would you distinguish a state from an act? It seems to me that they can be the same thing.

Anything that is in a state of existing is also in an act of existing. (That is, unless I misunderstand what is meant by the term "act of existing" in this discussion, which is entirely possible.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

You're not grasping the abstract nature of "God" as a term. You keep trying to use it as a concrete term, and it's just not. The actual source of existence, is God. Whatever that turns out to be, which as of yet, is still unknown. You really can't argue against that, all you can do is refuse to use the term as it is meant.

Then God is a meaningless word that has no real definition. I might as well say that the source of existence is the Quirble, because that's just as concrete.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Many deny that there is a supernatural cause of our being. To assert that existence is God is to assert that existence is the supernatural cause of all being.

Existence isn't supernatural - it's part of the natural universe.

Also, what do you mean when you say 'otherwise other positions become possible'?[/QUOTE]

For something to be logically necessary, it has to be the only option. If any other options are available, then none of them are necessary. You cannot say that the source of existence has to be God unless you can logically show that no other options can exist.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It wouldn't be above nature. Nature is all about "acts of existing" -- that is what every entity does by nature. As Aristotle had pointed out, to be is to be something. Being something is existing. There is no separating these two. Ground of being arguments are entirely needless, since existing is part of what it is to be a specific natural entity.

Any being which exists by nature cannot cease to exist due to its very nature of existing If a being may cease to exist, then that being does not exist by its own nature but instead exists because of the nature of some other being.

And if 'the act of existing' does not have to involve a God or be called a God, then morality can exist without God.

Right, but I believe that 'the act of existing' is God. Most people would generally agree that 'God' means 'supernatural', 'supreme being', and so on.

Yes, but saying that existence is "God" is a pure matter of taste on your part. It's not necessary.

You're right, I could just call God 'existence', and pray to 'existence.' But that is not necessary either, so I will do as I please.

What would you accept as a justification?

Natural beings have the potential to change in being and cease to exist. The act of existing does not appear to have such potential.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Existence isn't supernatural - it's part of the natural universe.

The natural universe is something which exists. It therefore depends upon another being, the act of existing, to exist -- that is, unless the universe itself is identical to the act of existing.

For something to be logically necessary, it has to be the only option. If any other options are available, then none of them are necessary. You cannot say that the source of existence has to be God unless you can logically show that no other options can exist.

Nothing can exist without the act of existing. It is a logical impossibility.

 

[ivebeenshown]

A rock. You know, like what Charlie Brown gets on Halloween.

How does a rock necessitate that the act of existing and the act of perceiving are not one and the same in being?

Perhaps they are identical to each other, and every being participates in the act to the fullest extent that is permitted by its own nature.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The natural universe is something which exists. It therefore depends upon another being, the act of existing, to exist -- that is, unless the universe itself is identical to the act of existing.

Existence is a word, but that doesn't mean that it refers to an object or an act. Existence is a description or a property of something that exists.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Existence is a word, but that doesn't mean that it refers to an object or an act. Existence is a description or a property of something that exists.

Existence is a verb, which is an action, or act.

"Something exists."

This is the simplest possible form of a complete sentence. It contains a subject which consists of one noun, and a predicate which consists of one verb. As we can see, 'something' is a noun, which performs an action, or verb, specifically 'existing'.

Now, nouns and verbs may be used as adjectives and adverbs (descriptions or properties), but their use as such does not erase the fact that they are, at their very core, nouns and verbs.

 

[Gracchus]

Existence is a verb, which is an action, or act.

No, "existence" is a NOUN! "Exist" is a verb.

"ex·is·tence (

g-z

s

t

ns) n.
1. The fact or state of existing; being.
2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
3.
a. All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
4. A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
5. Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.
Synonyms: existence, actuality, being
These nouns denote the fact or state of existing: laws in existence for centuries; an idea progressing from possibility to actuality; a point of view gradually coming into being.
Antonym: nonexistence"


"verb (vûrb) n.
1. Abbr. V or vb.
a. The part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence in most languages.
b. Any of the words belonging to this part of speech, as be, run, or conceive.
2. A phrase or other construction used as a verb.


[Middle English verbe, from Old French, from Latin verbum, word, verb (translation of Greek rh

ma, word, verb); see wer-5 in Indo-European roots.]"


"Noun (noun)
n. Abbr. n.
1. The part of speech that is used to name a person, place, thing, quality, or action and can function as the subject or object of a verb, the object of a preposition, or an appositive.
2. Any of the words belonging to this part of speech, such as neighbor, window, happiness, or negotiation.


[Middle English, name, noun, from Anglo-Norman, from Latin n

men (translation of Greek onoma, name, noun); see n

-men- in Indo-European roots.]"


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"Something exists."

This is the simplest possible form of a complete sentence. It contains a subject which consists of one noun, and a predicate which consists of one verb. As we can see, 'something' is a noun, which performs an action, or verb, specifically 'existing'.

Now, nouns and verbs may be used as adjectives and adverbs (descriptions or properties), but their use as such does not erase the fact that they are, at their very core, nouns and verbs.

"Something" does not perform "existence", rather "existence" is a possible property of "something".

For instance the word "verb" has the property of being an instance of the concept "noun". If you are confused maybe you should ask mommy to explain it.

Now, please be quiet and let the grownups talk.