God: the best possible explanation (moral ontological argument time)

[GrowingSmaller]

If God is defined as the most excellent being, the "summum bonum" in latin, then if he is regarded as the cause of existence, then what better explanation could there be?

Moral objectivists regard preferability as an objective feature of existence, or at least of certain choices for psychial beings. Well, I loosely suppose that the "summum bonum" is the preferble choice, a priori, as the universal cause. Now, should such a being exist?

Of course it should, in one sense at least, as that would be the better alternative. Because if it didnt perhaps we would be subject to a relatively more cruel and arbitrary fate, all such alternatives being lesser in preferability...

Abduction means:

"Inference to the best explanation."

The term is usually uised in the philosophy of empirical science. Does it have a cosmological cum moral counterpart?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Morality is neither an argument for or against God. Morality could have developed with out God. However I believe that God has made moral laws that benefit his creatures.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If God is defined as the most excellent being, the "summum bonum" in latin, then if he is regarded as the cause of existence, then what better explanation could there be?

Moral objectivists regard preferability as an objective feature of existence, or at least of certain choices for psychial beings. Well, I loosely suppose that the "summum bonum" is the preferble choice, a priori, as the universal cause. Now, should such a being exist?

Of course it should, in one sense at least, as that would be the better alternative. Because if it didnt perhaps we would be subject to a relatively more cruel and arbitrary fate, all such alternatives being lesser in preferability...

Abduction means:

"Inference to the best explanation."

The term is usually uised in the philosophy of empirical science. Does it have a cosmological cum moral counterpart?

I don't know what definition for "abduction" you're using. If it's an auto-spelling error, then I'm a bit worried about what things you've been googling or having conversations about lol.

All kidding aside, "better" in what way? Good, better, and best are subjective terms. They reflect opinions... not facts. When it comes to the question of god's existence or the beginning of the universe (if there is such a thing) I'm concerned with truth...with facts...not opinions.

In other words, you may prefer "god" as an answer for things....but that alone does not make those answers true.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are you trying to use an ontological argument to prove God exists? I'm confused.

 

[variant]

If God is defined as the most excellent being, the "summum bonum" in latin, then if he is regarded as the cause of existence, then what better explanation could there be?

Defining God into existence doesn't make it so. The universe may indeed have had a cause but this doesn't make religion a good explanation of it.

The most excellent being needn't be a God.

Moral objectivists regard preferability as an objective feature of existence, or at least of certain choices for psychial beings. Well, I loosely suppose that the "summum bonum" is the preferble choice, a priori, as the universal cause. Now, should such a being exist?

Well, before we would get into the Latin, first you you would need is a good argument to show that morality is objective.

Of course it should, in one sense at least, as that would be the better alternative. Because if it didnt perhaps we would be subject to a relatively more cruel and arbitrary fate, all such alternatives being lesser in preferability...

The best explanation is the one that is better from our perspective?

I'm not even sure what fallacy this is; simple wishful thinking perhaps?

I think you may be equivocating "best" here to mean both accurate and preferable from your perspective which is very odd.

Accuracy =/ What is preferred.

Abduction means:

"Inference to the best explanation."

The term is usually uised in the philosophy of empirical science. Does it have a cosmological cum moral counterpart?

No, you are certainly equivocating two very different ideas.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Morality is neither an argument for or against God. Morality could have developed with out God. However I believe that God has made moral laws that benefit his creatures.

Sounds ok , but I am arguing that maybe god ought to exist,if he can. Ought implis can, ie. obligations are only useful or meaningful if the obliged act is possible or achievable. For example,you ought to help implies you can help. But God is possible, so he is obligated to exist, because that would be better option (as he is the best possible being) ......or not?

Dont worry if you disagree, philosophers are noted for saying stragne things.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are you trying to use an ontological argument to prove God exists? I'm confused.

Well if the maximun good can exist, perhaps it ought to. Because that would be objectively preferable. So, God may not exist, but he ought to because it would be better if he did.

Similarly we can say God(or the maximum good) is the best explanation for the universe, not the best scientifically, but the best we can imagine in terms of moral hope.

Now if God is possible, and he can exist, does "he ought to exist, too" affect the chances in any way?

Or is the whole thread of argument baloney?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Defining God into existence doesn't make it so. The universe may indeed have had a cause but this doesn't make religion a good explanation of it.

We need a working definiton of "good explanation". One is "most rational in the light of evidence" and one is "most preferablein terms of the existence of good and evil".

The most excellent being needn't be a God.

Rational point.

Well, before we would get into the Latin, first you you would need is a good argument to show that morality is objective.

Well its not arbitrary,or down to mere whim. I think that your moral opinions have something "good cause" in the first sense, rather than being unfounded. I think maybe an issue is the need of a good definition of objective morality.

The best explanation is the one that is better from our perspective?

I'm not even sure what fallacy this is; simple wishful thinking perhaps?

Sounds possible, but I am not yet sure it is true.

I think you may be equivocating "best" here to mean both accurate and preferable from your perspective which is very odd.

Accuracy =/ What is preferred.

Well done, I was going to mention equivocation but kept the OP short.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All kidding aside, "better" in what way? Good, better, and best are subjective terms. They reflect opinions... not facts. When it comes to the question of god's existence or the beginning of the universe (if there is such a thing) I'm concerned with truth...with facts...not opinions.

Well either there is ontiological reality behind the "its bad tobreak someones legs for fun" moral statenment, or not. If there is, then morality has a real cause, and is in that sense objective.

 

[quatona]

Well if the maximun good can exist, perhaps it ought to. Because that would be objectively preferable. So, God may not exist, but he ought to because it would be better if he did.

Similarly we can say God(or the maximum good) is the best explanation for the universe, not the best scientifically, but the best we can imagine in terms of moral hope.

Now if God is possible, and he can exist, does "he ought to exist, too" affect the chances in any way?

Or is the whole thread of argument baloney?

Yes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well either there is ontiological reality behind the "its bad tobreak someones legs for fun" moral statenment, or not. If there is, then morality has a real cause, and is in that sense objective.

I don't think there's an ontological reality behind that statement. You certainly cannot prove there is.

Here's a question for you...how do you know what "ought" to be? You say god "ought" to exist because that's "better" than him not existing. How do you know? How do you know that there ought not be 1001 gods existing?

You're blurring the lines of opinion and fact. You cannot define your way into a fact. You cannot ought your way into a truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If God is defined as the most excellent being, the "summum bonum" in latin, then if he is regarded as the cause of existence, then what better explanation could there be?

The "cause of existence"? How does that make any sense? Did god exist? Before existence? Self-refuting statement is self-refuting.

Also, regardless of this obvious contradiction, I fail to see how this to be defined as an "explanation" on any level... An assertion is not an explanation. It has zero explanatory power.

Now, should such a being exist?

Of course it should, in one sense at least, as that would be the better alternative. Because if it didnt perhaps we would be subject to a relatively more cruel and arbitrary fate, all such alternatives being lesser in preferability...

Your preferences and emotional biases are irrelevant to the nature of reality and the cosmos.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is this thread some type of tutorial on how to engage in fallacies?

Well if the maximun good can exist, perhaps it ought to. Because that would be objectively preferable. So, God may not exist, but he ought to because it would be better if he did.

I'm not filthy rich, but I could be. Perhaps I ought to. It would certainly be better if I was. But am I?

Similarly we can say God(or the maximum good) is the best explanation for the universe, not the best scientifically,

The origin of the universe is a scientific question. If god is not the best scientific explanation for the universe, then god is not the best explanation. Period.

That's a response only to the illogical statement you made.

My actual response is that god isn't an explanation of anything at all. God is a baseless assertion with nothing whatsoever to back it up, which is arbitrarily defined literally in function to make to theology work. It's based on nothing that is actually real. God stories are things that come from sources like "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations". None of these sources are trustworthy and indeed, never has any idea that came from such sources turned out to be better then ideas coming from empirical evidence. Ever.

but the best we can imagine in terms of moral hope.

I heavily disagree. If the abrahamic god would be real, I'ld consider that to be quite a horrible reality. Reading the bible and the quran, I can only conclude that this deity is quite an evil entity. If he/she/it would be real, it would be like living in a celestial North Korea, as Hitchins once put it. No thanks.

Now if God is possible, and he can exist, does "he ought to exist, too" affect the chances in any way?

No. Just like how I ought to be filthy rich doesn't change the fact that I'm not, nore does it increase the chances of me being filthy rich. It's just willfull thinking and personal bias.

Or is the whole thread of argument baloney?

Ow, it's baloney allright...

 

[variant]

We need a working definiton of "good explanation". One is "most rational in the light of evidence" and one is "most preferablein terms of the existence of good and evil".

Again, Preferable =/ accurate. In terms of explanations accuracy comes ahead of preference or else you are just biasing your result.

Well its not arbitrary,or down to mere whim. I think that your moral opinions have something "good cause" in the first sense, rather than being unfounded. I think maybe an issue is the need of a good definition of objective morality.

You are missing the definition of "objective"

Objective is not based upon but rather is independent from human ideas.

It would be hard to show that morality is objective. You would have to support this point thoroughly for the rest of the argument to work. And, you would have to do so without relying on the idea that God exists as that is the goal of the larger argument.

Sounds possible, but I am not yet sure it is true.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Well done, I was going to mention equivocation but kept the OP short.

Well equivocation is something to avoid in this case.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well if the maximun good can exist, perhaps it ought to. Because that would be objectively preferable. So, God may not exist, but he ought to because it would be better if he did.

I suppose a good God existing would be better than no God. So I agree.

Similarly we can say God(or the maximum good) is the best explanation for the universe, not the best scientifically, but the best we can imagine in terms of moral hope.

You could say it is the nicest idea.

Now if God is possible, and he can exist, does "he ought to exist, too" affect the chances in any way?

I don't think it makes sense to say God ought to exist. I'd think 'ought' applies to people, not reality in general.

I also don't think it affects the chances. It would be nice if people didn't die of starvation... but they do.

Or is the whole thread of argument baloney?

I wouldn't call it baloney, but I'm not sure I agree.

Did you always have a Muslim icon on here?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think there's an ontological reality behind that statement. You certainly cannot prove there is.

I go with husserl, hume and phenomenology. "Value" is grounded in emotion (Husserl), which is relevant to ethics (Hume), and isopart of a morally meaningful life-world (my phenomenology).

Here's a question for you...how do you know what "ought" to be?

If there are multiple choices, theone with more value for the agent is better, and "one ought to choose the better option" (eg not breaking ones legs) is my maxim.

You say god "ought" to exist because that's "better" than him not existing. How do you know? How do you know that there ought not be 1001 gods existing?

Well Godis(purportedly) the maximal good. So it would be the "better option" for him to exist. Or to have faith, or belief, may be a "better option" if it has benign consequences.

You're blurring the lines of opinion and fact. You cannot define your way into a fact. You cannot ought your way into a truth.

So, you dont mind mebreaking my legs then, for fun? Or anyone elses. I go by the idea, "with suffering comes wisdom", and I have suffered enough.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The "cause of existence"? How does that make any sense? Did god exist? Before existence? Self-refuting statement is self-refuting.

Also, regardless of this obvious contradiction, I fail to see how this to be defined as an "explanation" on any level... An assertion is not an explanation. It has zero explanatory power.

I am talking hypothetically, but good points.

Your preferences and emotional biases are irrelevant to the nature of reality and the cosmos.

But do you accept that it would be better if the cause of "creation" (the world of matter etc, nature) was caused by the ultimate good? Or on the other hand, if a malign being created us for sadistic fun.... ???

 

[DogmaHunter]

But do you accept that it would be better if the cause of "creation" (the world of matter etc, nature) was caused by the ultimate good? Or on the other hand, if a malign being created us for sadistic fun.... ???

I don't understand how this question is relevant in any way.

Would I prefer to be subjected to a moral entity instead of an immoral one? Sure. However, I'ld prefer to not be subjected to any entity at all.

I'ld also prefer that we didn't get skin cancer from solar radiation, that there would be no desease, no harmful germs, no poverty, that the universe wasn't such a hostile place (asteroids, radiation, exploding stars, black holes, etc... these are all things that can obliterate life on this planet).

My preferences have no bearing on reality however. Nobody's preferences have any bearing on reality. Reality is what it is, regardless of our emotional attachment to certain preferences.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose a good God existing would be better than no God. So I agree.



You could say it is the nicest idea.

Iamglad someone has humility to (hypothetically)seesome sense inwhat i say.

I don't think it makes sense to say God ought to exist. I'd think 'ought' applies to people, not reality in general.

I also don't think it affects the chances. It would be nice if people didn't die of starvation... but they do.

I agree. Maybe there are things that arecontingently preferable, and things which are necessarily preferable. Contingent things to contingent beings like us,and necessary ones to (take a deep breath) "god like" entities. The contingent relating to a posteriori entities, andthe world of appearances, and the necessary a priori,the absolute truth...? Just a vuage surmise.

I wouldn't call it baloney, but I'm not sure I agree.

Did you always have a Muslim icon on here?

IIRC catholic, seeker, unitarian, humanist, then monotheist (unity), then humanist again, now a muslim.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't understand how this question is relevant in any way.

Would I prefer to be subjected to a moral entity instead of an immoral one? Sure. However, I'ld prefer to not be subjected to any entity at all.

So a nonmoral cause, or no cause there to be moral or optherwise in the first place, as in Sarterianism (?). leading to "abandonment" to oneself, the ultimate existential freedom....??? Neither benign or malign, but neutral with ethics emerging (with novel properties) with evolved life, human life in its present(ed) form???

I'ld also prefer that we didn't get skin cancer from solar radiation, that there would be no desease, no harmful germs, no poverty, that the universe wasn't such a hostile place (asteroids, radiation, exploding stars, black holes, etc... these are all things that can obliterate life on this planet).

My preferences have no bearing on reality however. Nobody's preferences have any bearing on reality. Reality is what it is, regardless of our emotional attachment to certain preferences.

Very well put, Dogmahunnter. Good points.