Why live at all?

[Christian-Catholic]

The fine tuning argument is not in the least bit convincing, mainly because it contains a number of unjustified assumptions.

First off, we don't know that we are the only universe, in fact the evidence that we do have points to a multiverse existing. If that is indeed the case, then the laws of physics and other properties of a universe could very well likely change from universe to universe.



And realistically speaking, if this was the work of an all powerful, brilliant creator who designed the universe with us in mind, he did a horrible job of it. The only place that we are aware of in which we can live out of the vast expanses of the cosmos, is a single planet. And we can't even live on vast portions of that single planet (i.e. the oceans, or the polar regions). If there are any other habitable planets, they're so far away it's quite possible we'll never reach them. There are untold billions of galaxies so distant from us, that we can never get there. This is not the work of an intelligent designer.

And besides, how on earth would a super-powerful, all intelligent being simply pop into existence in order to create the universe? God is not an answer, it has no explanatory power because we don't know what it is, and you can't even justify it's existence.

.

Ok now when you ask how an all powerful God can pop into existence your bringing about the same argument that dawkins brings up when he asks who created God. the answer is no one created him as he was the first uncaused cause which is perfectly logical to argue from a philosophical point as Professor peter Kreeft says here. Your arguing that God had to pop into existence , he never began to exist, he always existed. the alternative would be an infinite regress which is a logical contradiction. this is a philosophical argument that not only shows Good reason why God exists but that he must exist logically.

The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."
If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

as far as the multiverse theories that are out there, It is also wrought with many difficulties in that it is only a proposal. First of all its a theoretical Model and hasnt been proven. Secondly it wouldnt matter if there were multiverses because the BGV theorem which is a very solid theorem says that even if themultiverse theory proves correct then it to must have an ultimate beginning, therefore an ultimate beginninger (the first uncaused cause).
father Spitzer and William Lane Craig also bring up this point as well and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcbFFvVeoAk

and whats more alexander vilenkin who was one of the founders of this theorem said that Craig was accurate in how he argued the theorem. There are many theoretical models out there but a theoretical model doesnt prove anything and it can change with the tides of science.


And you argument that there couldnt be a designer because you feel that his design is a lousy design isnt a very philosophically tenable argument.

First of all since you arent a transcendent being that can see past, present and future happening at once you really arent in a position that God is in to see the ultimate outcome of your creation are you. Your assertion is absurd from God's point of view. In Christianity this is a fallen world and perfection is achieved in heaven.

And how do you know thyat we will never be able to explore world in another galaxy one day? When im asked whetehr I believe there is life in other galaxies or not my simple answer is I dont know but im open to it.
So far all we have are a collection of anecdotal evidences.

 

[Gadarene]

The only intellectually honest answer here is 'I don't know'

 

[Eudaimonist]

I didnt say he said that

So you're putting words in his mouth?

your assertion that life is good is still a subjective opinion.

So is my opinion that the Earth is round. That doesn't mean that there is no objective reality about which I may be correct or mistaken.

If human existence is merely molecules in motion and we end up in nonexistence in the end then there is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence.

That does not follow logically.

The finiteness of our lives does not mean that there are no good or bad values for us. Indeed, the alternative between life and death is precisely what makes values good or bad for us. It is why we can be said to have needs, and thus to find certain values beneficial. It is only to indestructible beings that good and evil might not exist.

As an atheist you can make an argument that your existence is subjectively good or bad but you cant say its objectively good or bad.

I would not make the argument that our existence is objectively good or bad, but that values are objectively good or bad for us.

I can also say that since the goal of human existence is eventually non existence that a quick non existence saves us the trouble of suffering in the end.

You may say whatever you like, but I'm not a hedonist who believes that the minimization of suffering is our fundamental good. I'm not an Epicurean.

There is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence in an atheistic worldview and that goes for morality as well.

In my atheistic worldview there are objective moral goods and evils.

In atheism a person that butchers a million people is no more objectively good or bad then a person helping an old lady across the street.

In your strawman atheism, sure.

In that worldview life is nothing but chemical interaction and blind chance acting upon great odds to bring about life. We are nothing but materials coming together. Blind indifference, nothing objectively good or bad.

We are biological entities with complex psychologies. In some purely reductionistic sense we are "chemical interactions", however, I am not a reductionist philosophically. We are more than "chemical interactions" taking place in some testtube. Whatever the origins of life, we are human persons. Nothing about the past changes that.

No different then nihilism. In fact I have always believed that Atheism is nihilism by another name.

Yes, and that is a common strawman of what is possible to atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

The only intellectually honest answer here is 'I don't know'

To "why live"..???

Seems to me any answer that feels right must also be intellectually honest.

 

[Gadarene]

To "why live"..??? Seems to me any answer that feels right must also be intellectually honest.

Oh, sorry - I meant on the question of origin of the universe.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence in an atheistic worldview and that goes for morality as well.
In atheism a person that butchers a million people is no more objectively good or bad then a person helping an old lady across the street.

It seems to me morality would be as objective to the Atheist as it is to the Christian! Why do you see it differently?

Ken

 

[Gadarene]

It seems to me morality would be as objective to the Atheist as it is to the Christian! Why do you see it differently? Ken

Not least because according to god's 'objectively good' commands it was morally right to slaughter entire races like the Amalekites.

It is also worth noting that the assertion that 'what god says = objective' has not been justified yet. Arguably it is just a very unique subjective opinion, even if it god could be shown to exist.

Given that that is not the case however all we have is the opinion of men on what god's opinion is.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok now when you ask how an all powerful God can pop into existence your bringing about the same argument that dawkins brings up when he asks who created God. the answer is no one created him as he was the first uncaused cause which is perfectly logical to argue from a philosophical point as Professor peter Kreeft says here. Your arguing that God had to pop into existence , he never began to exist, he always existed. the alternative would be an infinite regress which is a logical contradiction. this is a philosophical argument that not only shows Good reason why God exists but that he must exist logically.

If you are going to say that God has always existed as the first cause, how do you know the Universe (or whatever matter eventually evolved to become the Universe) hasn't always existed as the first cause?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

It is also worth noting that the assertion that 'what god says = objective' has not been justified yet. Arguably it is just a very unique subjective opinion, even if it god could be shown to exist.

Given that that is not the case however all we have is the opinion of men on what god's opinion is.

Excellent point! The Christian God can't even be objectivlly proven to exist! Let alone dole out morals that can be proven objectively! At least the aurthor of my morals can be proven objectively to exist; too bad you can't say that about yours huh?

Ken

 

[Christian-Catholic]

It seems to me morality would be as objective to the Atheist as it is to the Christian! Why do you see it differently?

Ken

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil. There is no objective moral foundation for them to think this.
Its basically one atheist's opinion against another.
Now if 2 people witness an act and one sees it as evil and one sees it as Good, please let me know how in the world can you rationally call that act objectively moral.

If you want to hold onto a logical absurdity to qualify morals as objective in an atheistic worldview you may do so but It makes no rational sense.

You do understand what objective moral values are dont you?
What I have just described to you now is moral relativism and most atheist philosophers concede this and that is why most of them dont believe that in atheism that there are objective moral values.

Now unless someone can bring up a better argument then this or that human nature recognizes life as good (which is also absurd since all we are is a bunch of blood, bones, flesh and electricity), then I would have to conclude that indeed as most atheist philosophers contend, there are no objective moral values in atheism, to say there is you would need to step outside atheism into another worldview where objective moral values are transcendent of us.

Its easy to understand wehy a Christian believes in objective moral values and I dont think I need to make that argument to you guys . Your smart enough to understand a very easy point to make from a Christian point of view.

 

[Gadarene]

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil. There is no objective moral foundation for them to think this.
Its basically one atheist's opinion against another.
Now if 2 people witness an act and one sees it as evil and one sees it as Good, please let me know how in the world can you rationally call that act objectively moral.

If you want to hold onto a logical absurdity to qualify morals as objective in an atheistic worldview you may do so but It makes no rational sense.

You do understand what objective moral values are dont you?
What I have just described to you now is moral relativism and most atheist philosophers concede this and that is why most of them dont believe that in atheism that there are objective moral values.

Now unless someone can bring up a better argument then this or that human nature recognizes life as good (which is also absurd since all we are is a bunch of blood, bones, flesh and electricity), then I would have to conclude that indeed as most atheist philosophers contend, there are no objective moral values in atheism, to say there is you would need to step outside atheism into another worldview where objective moral values are transcendent of us.

Its easy to understand wehy a Christian believes in objective moral values and I dont think I need to make that argument to you guys . Your smart enough to understand a very easy point to make from a Christian point of view.

You on the other hand, do not appear to have grasped a very easy point. Ken said that morality is as objective to the Christian as it is to the atheist - that is to say, neither have any claim to objective morals.

A justification of the blind assertion that "what god says = objective" would be a good start, which none of his defenders in this thread have yet provided.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As an atheist you can make an argument that your existence is subjectively good or bad but you cant say its objectively good or bad.

Why not?

There is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence in an atheistic worldview and that goes for morality as well.
In atheism a person that butchers a million people is no more objectively good or bad then a person helping an old lady across the street.

Atheism doesn't have a position on morality. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. It's not a worldview.

In that worldview life is nothing but chemical interaction and blind chance acting upon great odds to bring about life. We are nothing but materials coming together. Blind indifference, nothing objectively good or bad.

"Nothing but" is a snide remark. Yes, we are materials coming together -- materials that have come together to think and feel.

No different then nihilism. In fact I have always believed that Atheism is nihilism by another name.

Well, it's not.

 

[durangodawood]

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil. There is no objective moral foundation for them to think this.
Its basically one atheist's opinion against another....

You are looking for absolute morality among atheists.... and quite rightly, you dont find it.

But many atheists believe in objective (not absolute) morality, yet differ in the specifics. Why? Because there's argument about what makes human living best. Wisdom isnt ubiquitous, you know.

Its the objective facts about good human lives that are the basis for morality... even as our knowledge of those facts is incomplete and evolving. Wisdom is the correct knowledge of those facts. And, yes, that wisdom has often been enshrined in religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil. There is no objective moral foundation for them to think this.
Its basically one atheist's opinion against another.

You want to pretend that Christians, with their "objective" moral framework, don't disagree on what they see as good and evil?

Now if 2 people witness an act and one sees it as evil and one sees it as Good, please let me know how in the world can you rationally call that act objectively moral.

If you want to hold onto a logical absurdity to qualify morals as objective in an atheistic worldview you may do so but It makes no rational sense.

You do understand what objective moral values are dont you?
What I have just described to you now is moral relativism and most atheist philosophers concede this and that is why most of them dont believe that in atheism that there are objective moral values.

Now unless someone can bring up a better argument then this or that human nature recognizes life as good (which is also absurd since all we are is a bunch of blood, bones, flesh and electricity), then I would have to conclude that indeed as most atheist philosophers contend, there are no objective moral values in atheism, to say there is you would need to step outside atheism into another worldview where objective moral values are transcendent of us.

Its easy to understand wehy a Christian believes in objective moral values and I dont think I need to make that argument to you guys . Your smart enough to understand a very easy point to make from a Christian point of view.

Atheism isn't a pre-packaged worldview. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.

 

[Ken-1122]

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil.

The same reason Christians disagree on what they see as good and evil.

There is no objective moral foundation for them to think this.

Same can be said for he Christian.

Its basically one atheist's opinion against another.
Now if 2 people witness an act and one sees it as evil and one sees it as Good, please let me know how in the world can you rationally call that act objectively moral.

When you consider political issues such as abortion, gay marriage, interacial marriage, prayer in school, should creation be taught in school, Capital punishment, etc. there are a plethora of moral issues that Christians disagree on, so how can you as a christian label those acts as objective moral?

If you want to hold onto a logical absurdity to qualify morals as objective in an atheistic worldview you may do so but It makes no rational sense.

Then it makes no sense for the Christian either.

Its easy to understand wehy a Christian believes in objective moral values and I dont think I need to make that argument to you guys . Your smart enough to understand a very easy point to make from a Christian point of view.

Really? I find it difficult to understand why Christians believe in objective morality. When you consider your Old Testament God's commandment to not kill, but then in Numbers 31:17-18 the same God instructs murder, rape, and genoside in the worse way.
But then in Matthew 5:44 the God of the New testament (Jesus) says to love your enemies, and to bless those who curse you! So which is it? How can you say murder is objectively wrong or right when your Gods don't even seem to agree? Seems to me the Atheist can paint a clearer picture than what the God's of your Bible paints.

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

I didnt say he said that , Im asking whether he meant an objective good or subjective good, and your assertion that life is good is still a subjective opinion. If human existence is merely molecules in motion and we end up in nonexistence in the end then there is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence.

Nonsense, there are many things that are good or bad for us regardless of our personal opinion on the matter. In fact, many times what may be subjectively bad (i.e. the pains assosciated with quitting smoking) may be objectively good for us (a healthier lifestyle).

And what we're ultimately destined for is completely irrelevant to how life is in the here and now. Just because I'll likely be forgotten about a million years from now doesn't affect my life for the better or worse. In fact, if all you're worried about is not being forgotten, I'd call you rather vain. There's a lot greater things in life than that.

As an atheist you can make an argument that your existence is subjectively good or bad but you cant say its objectively good or bad. I can also say that since the goal of human existence is eventually non existence that a quick non existence saves us the trouble of suffering in the end.

Of course we can say life is objectively good or bad, why does belief, or non-belief in a god prevent or grant you that right? Your logic does not follow.

There is nothing objectively good or bad about our existence in an atheistic worldview and that goes for morality as well. In atheism a person that butchers a million people is no more objectively good or bad then a person helping an old lady across the street.

And here is a sign of fundamental misunderstanding of athiests and atheism. Are you willing to assert that I, and every other atheist on this forum believes that a mass murderer is no different than a helpful person?

Do you really want to make that argument? Or do you wish to withdraw it because you've had a chance to read it over again and realize it's not only bigoted, but factually incorrect.

But if you want to defend that point, by all means, let me know.

In that worldview life is nothing but chemical interaction and blind chance acting upon great odds to bring about life. We are nothing but materials coming together. Blind indifference, nothing objectively good or bad.

As I said above, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of Atheists. Personally, I view life as a beautiful and wonderful thing that we're unbelievably lucky to experience. The world is a great place, and the fact life doesn't go on forever makes it all the more precious.

On the flip side, the idea of being chained to a cosmic overlord who threatens to burn you in hell if you don't love him in my view is a grim and pitiful existence. The fact people get brainwashed into believing that against all reason, and throw their one shot at life away by believing in mythology is one of the greatest tragedies in human history.

No different then nihilism. In fact I have always believed that Atheism is nihilism by another name.

And yet, the vast majority of Atheists (including myself) are not nihilists... If anything, I'm the exact opposite.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Correct and that means exactly what I said, in atheism existence or non existence is subjectively good or bad depending on a persons opinion, there is no objective good or bad in atheism and there is absolutely nothing special about us.

But in Christianity there is an objective good and an objective bad and this is the difference and that is why we say in Christianity that all human beings are special because they were created to be special by our creator God.

Let me ask you a question.... I'm not conceding the point that we can't find objectively good things about life or existence....

But even if that were the case, then what's your point? If everybody lived a good, peaceful life, but only subjective good was applicable, would that not be an equally grand existence? Why is objectivity even important?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok now when you ask how an all powerful God can pop into existence your bringing about the same argument that dawkins brings up when he asks who created God. the answer is no one created him as he was the first uncaused cause which is perfectly logical to argue from a philosophical point as Professor peter Kreeft says here. Your arguing that God had to pop into existence , he never began to exist, he always existed. the alternative would be an infinite regress which is a logical contradiction. this is a philosophical argument that not only shows Good reason why God exists but that he must exist logically.

The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

The first cause argument is a bunch of utter nonsense.

You have no logical justification for claiming that "God was not created" or "he always existed", that's a simple bald assertion that somebody made up. You have no backing for your assertion, it's a way to try to sidestep the infinite regress without evidence.

as far as the multiverse theories that are out there, It is also wrought with many difficulties in that it is only a proposal. First of all its a theoretical Model and hasnt been proven. Secondly it wouldnt matter if there were multiverses because the BGV theorem which is a very solid theorem says that even if themultiverse theory proves correct then it to must have an ultimate beginning, therefore an ultimate beginninger (the first uncaused cause).
father Spitzer and William Lane Craig also bring up this point as well and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcbFFvVeoAk

You are correct that the multiverse is not proven, it's only something that the evidence we currently have points towards (as I pointed out in my previous post).

However, after that point you are making a composition fallacy. Cause and effect are things that we observe within the universe we inhabit. Time is also a property of our universe and started with the big bang. Cause and effect is dependent on temporal effects. If time does not exist as we know it, or exists in some other form outside of our universe, then cause and effect may not be applicable. In short, we can observe cause and effect within our universe, but it's a fallacy to argue that it applies to the universe as a whole as Craig does.

and whats more alexander vilenkin who was one of the founders of this theorem said that Craig was accurate in how he argued the theorem. There are many theoretical models out there but a theoretical model doesnt prove anything and it can change with the tides of science.

You are correct, Craig argues Vilenkin's work properly, however it's not Craig's understanding of science that undermines his argument. Where his argument falls apart is making the leap without evidence that such a universe requires an intelligent, transcendent creator being that he can't show evidence for. Using the science he is using, there is no justification to make that leap.

And you argument that there couldnt be a designer because you feel that his design is a lousy design isnt a very philosophically tenable argument.

If you're positing an intelligent, all powerful god who created the universe with us in mind it is. We can't survive in 99.9999999999999999999999999% (and add a couple billion more 9's after that) of this universe. If this was created with us in mind, what kind of moron would design it that way? That is not the work of a supreme being who built this specifically for us.

First of all since you arent a transcendent being that can see past, present and future happening at once you really arent in a position that God is in to see the ultimate outcome of your creation are you. Your assertion is absurd from God's point of view. In Christianity this is a fallen world and perfection is achieved in heaven.

And your argument contradicts the idea of a transcendant being. If God can see the past, present and future, and was happy with his design, then why did he create a world that he knew from the get go was going to fall into sin? It makes absolutely no sense. The only rational answer would be that if God has all the attributes you assign to him, then he purposefully created the world to fall, which contradicts the idea that's he's moral given the pain, injustice and suffering that it caused.

And how do you know thyat we will never be able to explore world in another galaxy one day? When im asked whetehr I believe there is life in other galaxies or not my simple answer is I dont know but im open to it. So far all we have are a collection of anecdotal evidences.

It's not a matter of getting to another galaxy, which may very well be impossible.... it's a matter of getting to the other hundreds of billions of galaxies that are moving away from us at slightly less than light speed. Given the expansion of space, and the extremely vast distances between us and the most distant galaxies, we'd never be able to traverse that distance.

 

[fireof god98]

i live to leave a mark on history no matter how small it is and to maybe further our understanding. i wonder although why Christians don't commit suicide to get to heaven faster

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please let me know if atheists see morality objectively then why do they disagree on what they see as good and evil.

Why do theists disagree on what they see as good and evil? If theists may disagree, does that mean that all of them are mistaken about ethics? Or might some ethical faction be correct?

Now if 2 people witness an act and one sees it as evil and one sees it as Good, please let me know how in the world can you rationally call that act objectively moral.

If by objectively moral you mean "universally regarded as moral", then there are no objective morals whatsoever, not even for Christians.

However, objectively moral can simply imply moral realism.

Moral realism is a non-nihilist form of cognitivism. In summary, it claims:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

Moral realism stands in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism and moral skepticism, including:

1. ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts);
2. error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and,
3. non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all).

That is how I understand "objectively moral". I don't add universal agreement to that. If two people disagree with the goodness of an act, one of them still may be correct. Such an act may still be objectively good or evil in the presence of disagreement.


eudaimonia,

Mark