Sound arguments for God's existence.

[dreadnought]

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.

The Lord solves all my problems for me. I suppose it would be stupid for me to stop believing in him.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Original sin is the part where I disagree with Augustine the most vehemently. Our species is capable of a LOT of folly, and cruelty, and downright atrocious deeds done while pursuing supposedly noble causes (or straightforward and acknowledged sinister ones, in some cases). But I would attribute none of that to any metaphysical brokenness on our part.
Buddha hit much closer to the mark, demonstrating how the disconnection between desired outcome and reality is at the core of suffering. It certainly does not help that we've got such a poor grasp of our subconscious, and so many people fail to acknowledge their less rational impulses as an integral part of their humanity - or else demonize and repress them as "animalistic" or some such nonsense.

 

[Silmarien]

Original sin is the part where I disagree with Augustine the most vehemently. Our species is capable of a LOT of folly, and cruelty, and downright atrocious deeds done while pursuing supposedly noble causes (or straightforward and acknowledged sinister ones, in some cases). But I would attribute none of that to any metaphysical brokenness on our part.
Buddha hit much closer to the mark, demonstrating how the disconnection between desired outcome and reality is at the core of suffering. It certainly does not help that we've got such a poor grasp of our subconscious, and so many people fail to acknowledge their less rational impulses as an integral part of their humanity - or else demonize and repress them as "animalistic" or some such nonsense.

Oh, I disagree with Augustine's specific metaphysical analysis of original sin--hereditary curses and so forth and so on. But I am intrigued by some of the more modern theology on the subject that views it from within an evolutionary paradigm. Sin and evil as privation, imperfection, and so forth.

There are aspects of our humanity that are extremely problematic, though. The darker side of being a communal species that means we're often too willing to sacrifice our own integrity if it means societal approval. A certain will to power that will manifest itself at the expense of others, given the right circumstances. That's probably pretty close to a hereditary curse, since it is almost certainly an evolutionary legacy.

I prefer to admit that there's something inherently broken there (at least compared to what we would like to be), because the alternative leads to an unreflective optimism that eventually morphs into rigid dogmatism, à la Marxism.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

But conscious self-awareness is the Universe being conscious of it's Self. Is that desirable? Other than consciousness seeming to be an evolutionary trajectory, I don't know if it's desirable or not. It is interesting though and something the Universe seems at some level to be headed towards.

 

[Silmarien]

But conscious self-awareness is the Universe being conscious of it's Self. Is that desirable? Other than consciousness seeming to be an evolutionary trajectory, I don't know if it's desirable or not. It is interesting though and something the Universe seems at some level to be headed towards.

Well, that's pretty pantheistic. Most naturalists would reject it, since you're in dangerous water if you think evolution has any direction at all.

Conscious self-awareness seems more like a sophisticated form of insanity than anything desirable, given naturalistic commitments. I'm not sure how it could be anything else when existence itself is utterly absurd.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, that's pretty pantheistic. Most naturalists would reject it, since you're in dangerous water if you think evolution has any direction at all.

When I used the word "trajectory", I wasn't meaning direction other than it's evolving. And I'd say it's more Panentheistic in nature because it's pretty hard to remove consciousness from the Universe and visa versa.

As far as direction, I'm just looking at nature itself and the evolution of consciousness on Earth the past 5 Billion years. It's the one thing on this planet that has constantly evolved, and I don't believe that we are seeing any end to it's evolution. There seems to be something in the process of nature that can't help but evolve consciousness. Where it's heading?...no one knows!

Conscious self-awareness seems more like a sophisticated form of insanity than anything desirable, given naturalistic commitments. I'm not sure how it could be anything else when existence itself is utterly absurd.

Like I wrote previously, I don't know if it's desirable or not. What I do know is that Conscious self-awareness exist. That's the bottom line. And the only way I can see the absurdly of existence is if one could show that "Isness" itself is absurd.

 

[Silmarien]

I'd say it's more Panentheistic in nature because it's pretty hard to remove consciousness from the Universe and visa versa.

As far as direction, I'm just looking at nature itself and the evolution of consciousness on Earth the past 5 Billion years. It's the one thing on this planet that has constantly evolved, and I don't believe that we are seeing any end to it's evolution. There seems to be something in the process of nature that can't help but evolve consciousness.

Yes, but you're not a naturalist. It would be very easy to remove consciousness from the universe for materialists--in fact, it's almost mandatory unless you're going to adopt an unorthodox view of matter. I'm not addressing panentheism here.

Like I wrote previously, I don't know if it's desirable or not. What I do know is that Conscious self-awareness exist. That's the bottom line. And the only way I can see the absurdly of existence is if one could show that "Isness" itself is absurd.

If every "law" that governs the universe is ultimately arbitrary, if the universe itself need not have existed and could conceivably wink out of existence at any moment, if self-awareness is the byproduct of unthinking, unordered forces, and so forth and so on, then I would say that the whole picture that emerges is utterly unintelligible. If it is not necessary that something exist, then it is absurd that anything exists.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, but you're not a naturalist. It would be very easy to remove consciousness from the universe for materialists--in fact, it's almost mandatory unless you're going to adopt an unorthodox view of matter. I'm not addressing panentheism here.

I guess your right, I must not be a naturalist. In the world I swim in, its impossible to remove consciousness from the material.

If every "law" that governs the universe is ultimately arbitrary, if the universe itself need not have existed and could conceivably wink out of existence at any moment, if self-awareness is the byproduct of unthinking, unordered forces, and so forth and so on, then I would say that the whole picture that emerges is utterly unintelligible. If it is not necessary that something exist, then it is absurd that anything exists.

Too many "if's" for me. And too many mental concepts that do not align with what is actually seen. It's clear that the physical universe has self-organized into a narrow set of laws that have a way of creating an infinite variety of forms, including self- awareness.

To equate the formula that it is "not necessary that something exist" with the "than it is absurd that anything exist" is in itself absurd, it seems to me.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What exactly do you think qualifies as permanent about your "self"?
Our mind is not a monolithic whole, but a collection of shifting, changing, sometimes even contradictory parts, many of them sub- or unconscious.
Our memories are notoriously unreliable, even in perfect health, yet our ability to retain knowledge of the past is fundamentally important.
Our bodies are essential to every interaction with and reaction to our surroundings.

Imagine we were able to somehow turn ourselves into disembodied intelligences, either magically becoming ghosts, scientifically downloading ourselves into digital format or any other method you can think of. What would we have in common with this new, different being? It would not possess the sensory organs to interact with and perceive its surroundings, would lack the endocrinal systems that elicits emotions, potentially even lack the vast, unconscious part of our mind that determines so many of our thoughts, deeds, and feelings.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The universe is conscious in the shape of us (and, potentially, other self-aware entities), experiencing and reflecting upon the greater whole.
Our inability to think of ourselves in terms of greater frames of reference has caused quite a few problems - environmental degradation not the least among them.

 

[Noxot]

it is easy to know that God "exist". God is what endures forever and is greatest of all reality and that is also what I call "good". therefore there is no question of if God is or is not. the question is how is God like and what is God?

if destruction is the fundamental lasting principle of reality then destruction is God. if absurdity, then God is absurdity. if love, then God is love. if wisdom, then God is wisdom. if nature, then God is nature. if chaos, then God is chaos. if beauty, then God is beauty. ect.

 

[AskTheFamily]

A personality to exist must be perceived.
A personality to accurately exist with it's proper value must be accurately perceived.
Only perfect absolute vision that sees things absolutely perfectly and judges perfectly and defines all things, states, and actions, can truly see a personality for what it exactly is.
Our personality accurately exists.
Therefore the absolute perfect judge exists.

 

[Arius]

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.

So I'm just wondering, do you think humanity (everyone except Noah's 8) before Noah's flood considered their life as "good", as you neatly described it here?:

-- "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.​

They did live for many hundreds of years, .. Noah himself lived 950 years !?

Thanks.​

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

it is easy to know that God "exist". God is what endures forever and is greatest of all reality and that is also what I call "good". therefore there is no question of if God is or is not. the question is how is God like and what is God?

if destruction is the fundamental lasting principle of reality then destruction is God. if absurdity, then God is absurdity. if love, then God is love. if wisdom, then God is wisdom. if nature, then God is nature. if chaos, then God is chaos. if beauty, then God is beauty. ect.

Deities are commonly understood to be persons, not other random abstract constructs or concrete realities such as "wisdom" or "nature".
A sentence such as "God is love" (specifically talking about the Christian deity) makes about as much sense as "the Party is Light" or "Stalin is justice".

 

[dlamberth]

A personality to exist must be perceived.
A personality to accurately exist with it's proper value must be accurately perceived.
Only perfect absolute vision that sees things absolutely perfectly and judges perfectly and defines all things, states, and actions, can truly see a personality for what it exactly is.
Our personality accurately exists.
Therefore the absolute perfect judge exists.

Interesting. But there is no judgment in the absolute personality that I perceive. There is only Life.

 

[Noxot]

Deities are commonly understood to be persons, not other random abstract constructs or concrete realities such as "wisdom" or "nature".
A sentence such as "God is love" (specifically talking about the Christian deity) makes about as much sense as "the Party is Light" or "Stalin is justice".

I agree that gods seem to almost always be linked to a personality.

I think that you will obey someone or something. I don't think you can escape from this. so what you bend your knee to is what you think or act like God is. you don't have to believe in a God, you simply have to have a master. I want to prove that people have something/s that is God over them.

what I just mentioned is important to every single human being and it is dangerous if an evil person can believe in God and thinks he can prove God exist and yet that God be a total bigot and devil to others. all people are going to act in some kind of state of being. they will be something.

God is a fundamental thing that aids in many peoples becoming. so God exist, this is sure and true because God is the ultimate or highest reality we can conceive of or know and that we base our lives around. the important question of "what is God like?" is way better than trying to prove that a box full of serpents/bunnies with the name "God" written on it exist.

besides, if you know God exist then how can that be if you don't even know his nature? how much do you really know he exist if you don't even know him?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Interesting. But there is no judgment in the absolute personality that I perceive. There is only Life.

Love that doesn't judge value for what it is or in case in humans, those who don't their best to get to accurate sight of value, equate the worse with the best, and that is not life, that is destruction, as opposed the measurer of all value for what they exact are and the knower of the unseen states, and I know for a fact it is not life, it is destruction.

I believe in the God that saved the Israelites, I believe in the Lord of Moses and Aaron, and the one who gave Ishmael and Isaac to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob.

I believe in the one who reaches out and provides a Guardian and Helper to the oppressed, a Hero and Guide to the good, and intercessor and means to salvation for the sinners.​

 

[AskTheFamily]

quoted myself by accident.

 

[dlamberth]

Love that doesn't judge value for what it is or in case in humans, those who don't their best to get to accurate sight of value, equate the worse with the best, and that is not life, that is destruction, as opposed the measurer of all value for what they exact are and the knower of the unseen states, and I know for a fact it is not life, it is destruction.​

Love doesn't judge. Period! It gives freely of itSelf, regardless of one's perceived or real shortcomings of others. Otherwise, it's something other than Love.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think that you will obey someone or something. I don't think you can escape from this.

That is a weird way of conceptualising reality. Not unworkable, but very alien to me. I do not conceive of reality in terms of hierarchy, authority, or obedience, but of interdependence, necessity, and cooperation. Maybe it's ultimately a case of tomato/tomato, but unsurprisingly, I find my approach far more productive than yours. (I concede, though, that our species has spent most of its history and pre-history in hierarchical structures, following "alphas" and structuring societies around such principles. It is not a coincidence that monarchies were ubiquitous until the advent of industrialization - or that they started to disappear just at that point. I'd say the material circumstances of our existence have changed sufficiently to retire hierarchical models of social organisation, or at least to gradually phase them out.