Sound arguments for God's existence.

[AskTheFamily]

Among the sound arguments I have presented for God:

1. The brain is very complex.
2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.
3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness, then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.
4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.
5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.
7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.
8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.
9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.


Will be posting more.

 

[Halbhh]

Among the sound arguments I have presented for God:

1. The brain is very complex.
2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.
3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness, then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.
4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.
5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.
7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.
8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.
9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.


Will be posting more.

Hello, I wasn't able to guess which meaning is meant for some of your wording. Just so you know, for me, the existence of God is a 100% certainty (which is unusual), due to having so many different kinds of personal evidence and to the level of certainty now as I know the sun exists. The repeated confirmations. Trying to understand your logical argument I wasn't able to guess for sure what you mean in #4 as you worded it: " If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true...". For instance, is this the same meaning?: 'Since we don't with certainty that the brain is the source of morality and goodness, nor do we know with certainty that naturalism is true...' <-- Is that what you meant here? If not, you may have to reword better. Additionally #7 seemed somewhat unclear. The logic in point #6 isn't laid out sufficiently to accept it yet, but seems not to follow logically as written. #6 seems as if it might have been using this logic (though I'm not sure this is what you meant!)--> We know goodness exists (some people will argue this, but I agree), but since we cannot be certain morality is from the brain, then we can conclude that naturalism is false. That's not logical as I've just written it, since for example, a person might think morality is in the brain, but we simply can't understand the brain yet, etc. Consider additionally that God as the creator and designer means that He (God) could have designed some partial (incomplete, but still some) morality into the brain, or not. Not understanding the brain, we couldn't assert one way or the other.

 

[AskTheFamily]

In short it's saying to be justified in belief in morality, we must understand at least how and why it's justified, with belief in God this is understood, where as with belief in naturalism, it is not, and that we are justified in belief in morality, and one proof of that aside from many, is that brain is complex and we never knew enough about in the past to justify that it justifies morality.

 

[Silmarien]

In short it's saying to be justified in belief in morality, we must understand at least how and why it's justified, with belief in God this is understood, where as with belief in naturalism, it is not, and that we are justified in belief in morality, and one proof of that aside from many, is that brain is complex and we never knew enough about in the past to justify that it justifies morality.

Is it, though? People have been arguing about whether or not morals can be divinely mandated since at least Plato, so if the hurdle that needs to be met for belief in morality to be justified is that it be perfectly understandable, theism fails too.

I do agree that naturalism cannot account for morality, but you're begging the question against moral nihilism by saying that goodness is not an illusion.

 

[Halbhh]

Is it, though? People have been arguing about whether or not morals can be divinely mandated since at least Plato, so if the hurdle that needs to be met for belief in morality to be justified is that it be perfectly understandable, theism fails too.

I do agree that naturalism cannot account for morality, but you're begging the question against moral nihilism by saying that goodness is not an illusion.

I think this is extremely interesting. I already agree with your last sentence (mostly, though it's possible to assert some naturalistic moral stuff like the observed innate preference we have for 'fairness'), and yes, the op didn't even slightly settle the question of how one is supposed (in the op) to think a 'goodness' (an objective 'good and evil') is an established fact. This last is a great question to consider by itself.

I think just on this basis alone, it's possible to have a definition of a kind of objective 'good' (and thus also the 'not-good' or 'evil') -- "Good" would be that which better than any other way/solution/idea/set of rules works the best to enhance/increase/support quality of life for the community/species as a whole. Where 'quality of life' means that more people live longer lives with more (self-reported) happiness, or simply that is the total level of contentment is highest.

This isn't quite as poor or slippery a definition as it may seem at first! Give me just another minute of your attention --

It comes down to clear and measurable quantities like life spans in aggregate, and clear things like the level of warfare in the world as a whole. Stuff you can actually measure quantitatively. Therefore it's 'objective' of course in that it can be measured and tracked and verified.

Put into everyday American lingo, the "good" is that which makes life better for all of us.

 

[Larniavc]

with belief in God this is understood,

Not really. If God decides killing is fine it becomes moral.

So you can’t call it objective.

 

[Uber Genius]

Among the sound arguments I have presented for God:

1. The brain is very complex.
2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.
3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness, then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.
4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.
5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.
7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.
8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.
9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.


Will be posting more.

If objective morals don't exist then God doesn't exist.
Objective morals do exist therefore God exists.

So although both arguments are sound they may need some work to make them compelling.

On naturalism what we call "morality" is just a blind random adaptation derived from survival advantage enabling one's DNA to out produce one's competitors. (Dawkins, Ruse, et. al.)

Hiltler's Germany produced a moral code that said "killing inferior members of the culture leads to an optimal culture." These values found few dissenters. They wer "the good," given naturalism!

It seems important to not allow atheist materialists to steal the Christian worldview that all human beings are valuable from conception. They can't begin to ground that claim. Hitler was an optimally moral person given the truth Of naturalism!

Likewise I might poke mother Theresa in the eye by saying her work with the lowest in our society was morally evil as she artificially propped up the survival of gemetic ally inferior members of the species.

"GENOCIDE GOOD,
WORLD PEACE BAD!"

Is the slogan of the atheist who holds to naturalism. It most accurately represents the logical entailments of survival of the fittest combined with the fact that humans are no different than dirt, they are just a different arrangement of particles that have accidentally developed a brain that has the delusion there is meaning to life.

 

[awitch]

Among the sound arguments I have presented for God:
1. The brain is very complex.

That's relative but for the sake of argument, we can agree.

2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.

I can agree with that.

3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness, then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.

Morality doesn't emanate inherently from the mass in our heads. We reason with common sense and experience to determine morality.

How many people drive cars or use computers without knowing every detail about how they work?

4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.

Your then does not follow from your if.

5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion.

Goodness is relative.
Is planting pretty flowers good? Perhaps unless you introduce them into a different environment and it becomes an invasive species.

- Therefore naturalism is not true.
7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.
8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.
9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.

If morality is not determined by people, it is not necessarily from god. Or it may be from multiple gods.[/QUOTE]

 

[Uber Genius]

Morality doesn't emanate inherently from the mass in our heads. We reason with common sense and experience to determine morality.

Your point that we don't need to know how we do something in order to do it (your black box analogy), is fair. But whence come this reason and common sense on naturalism?

Last I heard Darwinian evolution selects based on survivability, not truth value of claims.

The rabbit that hides from the tiger thinking the tiger loves to play hide and seek is certainly not aware of true true nature of the world. Nevertheless will outcompete his fellow rabbits that don't have the sense to hide.

If morality is not determined by people, it is not necessarily from god. Or it may be from multiple gods.

[/QUOTE] objective morality is the issue.

Gods can produce laws or moral commands. But they run into the euthyphro dilemma from Plato's dialogs. Only a being that is the good by nature can split the horns of that dilemma and provide a universal standard of good true in the Jurassic age and andromeda where there are no humans. Just like 2+2=4 is true in all possible worlds.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Anyways, no deity* who boasts about subjecting sentient beings to torture by torching their skin off and then making it re-grow to start the procedure again will ever convince me of being benevolent or wise or the arbiter of morality. You'd be hard-pressed to find a functional human culture that does not frown upon such abominable deeds, and for good reason.

* Technically, it's not an actual deity making these boasts. It's the one(s) who depict this god in their writings, and sometimes attribute it to said entity. But that would needlessly complicate the above sentence.

 

[Silmarien]

I think just on this basis alone, it's possible to have a definition of a kind of objective 'good' (and thus also the 'not-good' or 'evil') -- "Good" would be that which better than any other way/solution/idea/set of rules works the best to enhance/increase/support quality of life for the community/species as a whole. Where 'quality of life' means that more people live longer lives with more (self-reported) happiness, or simply that is the total level of contentment is highest.

Well, I have a certain sympathy for Nietzscheanism, so I would contest a lot of the underlying assumptions here. For one, we've evolved to be a herd species, so the needs of the community is something that appeals for biological reasons. Does this make it an inherent good? Perhaps, if we think that it is "good" to adhere to biological mandates, but if an individual transcends these concerns, does that make him "evil" or simply beyond our subjective and ultimately limited moral concepts?

I think the closest you can get to morality with naturalism is to say that certain behaviors are psychologically or socially beneficial, but life has already been reduced to such a finite and meaningless thing that I hardly see any imperative tied to that at all.

 

[dlamberth]

In short it's saying to be justified in belief in morality, we must understand at least how and why it's justified, with belief in God this is understood, where as with belief in naturalism, it is not, and that we are justified in belief in morality, and one proof of that aside from many, is that brain is complex and we never knew enough about in the past to justify that it justifies morality.

With this Lover of God anyway, I see it as the exact opposite.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, I have a certain sympathy for Nietzscheanism, so I would contest a lot of the underlying assumptions here. For one, we've evolved to be a herd species, so the needs of the community is something that appeals for biological reasons. Does this make it an inherent good? Perhaps, if we think that it is "good" to adhere to biological mandates, but if an individual transcends these concerns, does that make him "evil" or simply beyond our subjective and ultimately limited moral concepts?

I think the closest you can get to morality with naturalism is to say that certain behaviors are psychologically or socially beneficial, but life has already been reduced to such a finite and meaningless thing that I hardly see any imperative tied to that at all.

To be more precise, in the next paragraph I'm saying that some direct outcomes of "the good" can actually be measured numerically. Observed with measurement. So, you could consider those precise things -- whether they seem good to you. Is the aggregate lifespan of humanity (average lifespan times the population) over a time period, such as maintained and continued over 120 years (or 1,000 years), something you yourself consider an aspect of "good" -- is it good in your own view if more people live longer lifespans in a sustainable way?

If you say "yes" you are agreeing on at least one kind of 'objective' (measureable) "good". An instance of 'absolute good'.

If you say "no" though, I'm curious how you see that as not being good in your view.

 

[Silmarien]

To be more precise, in the next paragraph I'm saying that some direct outcomes of "the good" can actually be measured numerically. Observed with measurement. So, you could consider those precise things -- whether they seem good to you. Is the aggregate lifespan of humanity (average lifespan times the population) over a time period, such as maintained and continued over 120 years (or 1,000 years), something you yourself consider an aspect of "good" -- is it good in your own view if more people live longer lifespans in a sustainable way?

If you say "yes" you are agreeing on at least one kind of 'objective' (measureable) "good". An instance of 'absolute good'.

If you say "no" though, I'm curious how you see that as not being good in your view.

No, I don't view it as an absolute good, since I don't think life itself is inherently good unless you hold that being is convertible with goodness, and you can't do that without jumping into theological territory. It's irrelevant whether the average lifespan is 40 years or 80 years or 800 years if we can't establish that life is good.

And under naturalism, I don't believe we can. Frankly, I don't see anything desirable about conscious self-aware existence at all--it's just a cruel fluke of the laws of chemistry.

 

[Halbhh]

It's irrelevant whether the average lifespan is 40 years or 80 years or 800 years if we can't establish that life is good.

Ah! I agree with that! Unless one has a kind of good feeling (or something one likes), even if only a subtle one, some version, even if only at times, of 'happiness' (or satisfaction, or contentment, or love, something), somehow -- without this, how could life be "good"? Indeed.

Quality of life. That is actually one of the most powerful avenues to discover the value in Jesus's instructions on how to live I found out, first hand. Doing the exact things He specifically said to do -- that made my life much better, more enjoyable. My quality of life went sharply up.

 

[Silmarien]

Ah! I agree with that! Unless one has a kind of good feeling (or something one likes), even if only a subtle one, some version, even if only at times, of 'happiness' (or satisfaction, or contentment, or love, something), somehow -- without this, how could life be "good"? Indeed.

Quality of life. That is actually one of the most powerful avenues to discover the value in Jesus's instructions on how to live I found out, first hand. Doing the exact things He specifically said to do -- that made my life much better, more enjoyable. My quality of life went sharply up.

Oh, I think it goes deeper than that. I may be the most Catholic crypto-agnostic ever, but I have pretty much traded secular humanism in for Augustinianism. If Christianity is right about nothing else, it's spot on with original sin. There is something inherently broken about our species, at least when viewed from the inside.

We have such strong moral intuitions, but we are incapable of achieving our dream of utopia--every attempt ends in totalitarianism of one form or another. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, these moral intuitions are pretty much meaningless and existence has no greater objective value than extinction, but even from an internal perspective granting some sort of subjective concept of morality, I think the Problem of Evil raises its head. It forces us to confront the question of whether the survival of the species is a justifiable good if it will always mean human suffering. My answer to that is "no," so I cannot justify human existence as "good" in any shape or form. From a naturalistic perspective, I think the Buddhist picture of life as suffering is very compelling, but that has consequences.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, I have a certain sympathy for Nietzscheanism, so I would contest a lot of the underlying assumptions here. For one, we've evolved to be a herd species, so the needs of the community is something that appeals for biological reasons. Does this make it an inherent good? Perhaps, if we think that it is "good" to adhere to biological mandates, but if an individual transcends these concerns, does that make him "evil" or simply beyond our subjective and ultimately limited moral concepts?

I think the closest you can get to morality with naturalism is to say that certain behaviors are psychologically or socially beneficial, but life has already been reduced to such a finite and meaningless thing that I hardly see any imperative tied to that at all.

"Reducced to... a finite and meaningless thing". Wow.
Do you think love is meaningless if it boils down to "nothing more than" biochemicals and neurons?
I'd contest this notion, and say that your error lies in conceptualising meaning incorrectly. (You are clearly more well-versed in philosophy than I am, so I apologise in advance for my limited knowledge of this particular area; I'm basically just writing down my own thoughts on this.)

 

[Silmarien]

"Reducced to... a finite and meaningless thing". Wow.
Do you think love is meaningless if it boils down to "nothing more than" biochemicals and neurons?
I'd contest this notion, and say that your error lies in conceptualising meaning incorrectly. (You are clearly more well-versed in philosophy than I am, so I apologise in advance for my limited knowledge of this particular area; I'm basically just writing down my own thoughts on this.)

Depends on what you mean by "nothing more than biochemicals and neurons."

I'm comfortable with the fact that our biology is more or less reducible to chemistry, but I have a problem with scientific reductionism in general. I think a holistic approach to science that accounts for top-down organizational behavior as equally fundamental has much more going for it, though I suspect it has certain philosophical consequences, whether that be panpsychism, idealism, pantheism, theism, or even just a broader appreciation for ontology. I'm not a particularly dogmatic non-naturalist.

I do think that love as we experience it is impossible to reduce fully to biochemicals, because you just slam against the subjective/objective divide, and there's no reason it would feel one way instead of another. So that's not really an issue for me because I don't take reductionist materialism seriously in the first place. But I do have issues with mortality and finitude in general--I do think it destroys all meaning. That has nothing to do with biochemicals, per se. I've explored the strongest atheistic contenders when it comes to making sense of a senseless universe, and I think they ultimately fail.

I'm very much a product of French atheistic existentialism, though, and I know you're thinking more in terms of Derrida, so we could be talking about different things when we use the word "meaning." My intuitions are pretty Camusian these days when it comes to atheism as a worldview, except probably even darker. Which is quite the achievement.

 

[Halbhh]

Oh, I think it goes deeper than that. I may be the most Catholic crypto-agnostic ever, but I have pretty much traded secular humanism in for Augustinianism. If Christianity is right about nothing else, it's spot on with original sin. There is something inherently broken about our species, at least when viewed from the inside.

We have such strong moral intuitions, but we are incapable of achieving our dream of utopia--every attempt ends in totalitarianism of one form or another. ...

Here, I was strongly reminded of Paul saying much the same in Romans chapter 7. Paul's writing gets deep, and can be hard to understand right off the bat, but I reckon you can read it. I'm not a poor reader, and I had to reread it more than once. Around verse 15 (or maybe 8) -- that's where you might find it get really interesting, or even more interesting (or at least it has strong parallels with what you just are saying here). Romans 7 NIV

... From a purely naturalistic standpoint, these moral intuitions are pretty much meaningless and existence has no greater objective value than extinction, but even from an internal perspective granting some sort of subjective concept of morality, I think the Problem of Evil raises its head. It forces us to confront the question of whether the survival of the species is a justifiable good if it will always mean human suffering. My answer to that is "no," so I cannot justify human existence as "good" in any shape or form. From a naturalistic perspective, I think the Buddhist picture of life as suffering is very compelling, but that has consequences.

Evil is inevitable and entirely unavoidable as a part of nature by necessity (see why below). First to define it though, I think of 'evil' as being the intentional aim to cause harm to others for our own gain. But that can sometimes be ambiguous, so actually Christ's wording is a more perfect complete definition. Evil is the opposite of the good, and the good is --
"So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..." (Christ speaking in Matthew chapter 7)
So evil is anything done that intentionally breaks this rule.

Evil is unavoidable in a situation where the beings are both intelligent and have real freedom to act (agency). There actually is no possible design or situation in which beings can have both intelligence and agency/freedom, and then be able to prevent evil from occuring. One could prevent evil by caging the being in cages isolated from each other perhaps, or by controlling them, which curtails real freedom. Or by removing agency in another way. One could design an evil-free group of beings (who interact) if they were rigidly programmed robots or were controlled like puppets. We are neither. Instead we are something so much better -- free beings that being free are therefore able to love.

What is 'faith'? -- it's like trust. It's akin to, or like, a trust in the Good (or Good as possible even) as...being the ultimate result/power behind reality (or possible to get to). The eventual outcome in some ultimate way (or even as an 'once we get there'). Trust in that (even trust it's possible) is...one form of faith in God, or a step to faith. This is all hand waving about the transcendent, and I can only hope I suggested something effectively instead of worded wrongly. He is. (the ultimate ground of being) Better probably is reading the scripture!

Faith, being trust, is also what allows love relationship to last over time without being destroyed. With faith, we can forgive, when there is a misunderstanding. We can tolerate a situation, if we have faith. Love can last if there is faith, trust, in the other.

So, faith is what's needed for eternity, then.

 

[Halbhh]

Ok, I finished editing my attempt to talk about the transcendent. :=)