|
Are you bored? Why don't you tell God how you feel about Him? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Adam420 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Oh, yeah? And what is(n't) God, exactly? In order to tell something doesn't exist, you probably know what it is that doesn't exist, right? Otherwise you may end up saying something silly as "chairs don't exist". |
God doesn't exist as a physical entity. God is a concept, an idea. The bible is a history book with metaphors. That's how I see things. You don't need to believe in god in order to be a genuinely good person. The concepts of "do not unto others that which you do not wish unto yourself" and "do unto others as you wish done unto yourself" are pretty ing logical and do not need some sort of divine entity to back them up. Those two quotes, fyi, (if you were curious) showcase pretty well the main fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity (being a good person passively vs. being a good person actively). But again, we don't need religion for that to make sense. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
I think Lira thinks too much.
But why does it matter if God exists? I'm pretty sure our belief or non belief has no impact on the status of God's existence. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Talking with God - Analysis
You responded that you're an edgy moral nihilist, and that there are no such things as the good and the just. This response has been given by 15% of the 54 people who have completed this activity to date.
Tensions
We have identified 2 tensions in your reponses, which represents a tension quotient of 50% (where lower is better). The average tension quotient for this activity is 72%.
It is important to be clear about what we mean by "tension" here. A tension between two beliefs does not necessarily indicate that they are logically inconsistent with each other. It refers rather to a lack of fit: so, for example, two beliefs will be designated as being in tension if some (farily) sophisticated reasoning is required in order to reconcile them with each other. Sometimes you will already be aware what form such reasoning might take; other times, you will not.
Note: Since you do not believe that God exists, you should read the analysis below as referring to 'Anything that counts as God...' rather than 'God'. |
| quote: | Tension 1: How can God obligate?
You believe that moral nihilism is true: in other words, that there is no such thing as right and wrong. However, it is widely accepted that God's commands do in fact obligate (or to put this another way, that any being that counts as God must have the ability to obligate through its commands). This amounts to the claim that it would be morally wrong not to follow a command given by God. If this is right, then there is a moral domain, and it's linked to the will of God. There is, of course, no logical inconsistency in conceiving of a God whose commands do not obligate, but that would be a rather strange conception of God. |
This argument erroneously assumes that the only obligations are moral obligations. Surely this is not so. Even absent any moral truths, I still have regular tax obligations to the government.
Even ignoring that rather striking flaw, however, it's not clear how there is any "tension" here given my response that I do not believe in any God. If the only conceptions of God which aren't "strange" are those which assume that it is morally wrong not to follow a command given by that God, and nothing can be morally wrong since morals don't exist, then it follows that no non-"strange" God exists, which is precisely how I responded.
| quote: | Tension 2: A capricious God?
If there are no standards of morality, then it seems to put God's actions and will beyond reason. God's commands are merely a function of his whim. There can be no reason for Him to prefer not killing over killing, monogamy over adultery, or indeed any particular state of affairs over its opposite. The consequence of this is to render God a fundamentally capricious being. |
This alleged tension commits the same errors as the other.
First, it assumes that morality provides the only standards by which to evaluate God's (or anyone else's) actions within reason. But if a math student provides an incorrect answer on his final examination, I would hope that even believers in moral truths would not find him morally culpable for his mistake. Yet, we do not act capriciously in calling it a "mistake." Moreover, even if morality did exist, what's the non-arbitrary basis for using it as the criteria by which to evaluate God's actions?
And second, given my asserted disbelief in any God, it would at most render God a "fundamentally capricious" hypothetical being. In other words, it would amount to nothing more than saying, "If God did exist, he would be fundamentally capricious." But it's an elementary principle of logic that if the antecedent of a material conditional is false, the conditional is ipso facto true. Thus, far from being a "tension," this result is logically unassailable. |
|
|
| Adam420 |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I think Lira thinks too much.
But why does it matter if God exists? I'm pretty sure our belief or non belief has no impact on the status of God's existence. |
Well obviously not, but I think that generally those who do believe in a god try to justify their perspective a lot more often than those who do not. In the end though, I think it's about accepting the fact that once we die we become nothing. People who cannot do that obviously say that there's a god and therefore there's an afterlife and they do that in order to quell their fear of death. Think about it, death isn't so bad if there's another life in store for you after it no? |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| quote: | | You claimed that there are moral standards that are independent of God's will. However, it is widely accepted that God's commands do in fact obligate (or to put this another way, that any being that counts as God must have the ability to obligate through its commands) - that it would be morally wrong not to follow a command given by God. This suggests at the very least that some aspect of morality flows from God. There is, of course, no logical inconsistency in conceiving of a God whose commands do not obligate, but that would nevertheless be a rather strange conception of God. |
There are thousands of different Gods and beliefs, ergo there are many moral standards all inderpendent from one another |
|
|
| gmilf |
| quote: | Originally posted by saluyamo
There are thousands of different Gods and beliefs, ergo there are many moral standards all inderpendent from one another |
Almost all religions are the same in my opinion. They are just a different way of looking at reality, but the underlying belief system is the same.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same God. Buddhism "evolved" from Hinduism. And within those 5 religions most of the people who believe in a form of God can classify themselves as one of the preceding. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I got confused when I told it that God didn't exist and then it asked me a bunch of crap about whether God was sovereign and . No, because God doesn't exist!
Hopefully Unicorns do, though :gsmile: |
Ah, you should have answered no on the second question. Then it wouldnhave thanked you and said that the test isnt for you :D Finished the poll in less than 10 seconds. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Adam420
Well obviously not, but I think that generally those who do believe in a god try to justify their perspective a lot more often than those who do not. In the end though, I think it's about accepting the fact that once we die we become nothing. People who cannot do that obviously say that there's a god and therefore there's an afterlife and they do that in order to quell their fear of death. Think about it, death isn't so bad if there's another life in store for you after it no? |
Precisely. I keep coming back to that point. Well after all aren't most if not all of our motivations self serving. In the case of god/religion its mainly to help us deal with the knowledge of our own mortality. But it would be narrow minded to limit it to just the after life. Works great in politics, sports,war, terrorism, etc. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by gmilf
Almost all religions are the same in my opinion. They are just a different way of looking at reality, but the underlying belief system is the same.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same God. Buddhism "evolved" from Hinduism. And within those 5 religions most of the people who believe in a form of God can classify themselves as one of the preceding. |
A Buddhist that believes in God is like an atheist bishop: there's something terribly amiss about it.
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I think Lira thinks too much. |
I actually don't think I think that much :p |
|
|
| Adam420 |
| Hey, it works great for getting gifts/money around the holiday time as well:D |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: |
Tension 1: God is sovereign
You claimed that God is sovereign in the sense that he has absolute authority over the whole of existence. However, if you think there are moral standards that are independent of God's will, then it seems at the very least he does not have authority over the domain of morals. Moreover, God's independence is threatened, since it appears that his goodness is dependent upon the extent to which he conforms to independent moral standards.
Tension 2: God is omnipotent
If there are moral standards independent of God's will that mean he cannot command what is evil and thereby make it good, then at least arguably this is a limit on his power. Therefore, there is a tension between your claim that God is omnipotent and your belief in an independent, objective morality.
Tension 3 (potential): God has freedom of will
You claimed that God has freedom of will, in that he is at liberty to exercize his power in any way he chooses. However, assuming that it is morally wrong to command what is evil, then God cannot command people to do what he knows to be morally wrong unless you accept that God is capable of immorality (which is possible in your case since you do not think God is omnibenevolent).
Tension 4: God can obligate?
You claimed that there are moral standards that are independent of God's will. However, it is widely accepted that God's commands do in fact obligate (or to put this another way, that any being that counts as God must have the ability to obligate through its commands) - that it would be morally wrong not to follow a command given by God. This suggests at the very least that some aspect of morality flows from God. There is, of course, no logical inconsistency in conceiving of a God whose commands do not obligate, but that would nevertheless be a rather strange conception of God. |
Read these and can reconcile these fairly easily. ing awesome site regardless though. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
developed by professional philosophers |
So... its basically made by people that never managed to get out of school or off unemployment benefits? |
|
|
|
|
