All this talk about atheism and theism makes me want to put something out there. I went through a fase lately when I really wanted God not to exist. I've come out of it for the most part, but I came away with a pretty good reason for God's existence.
At the core of the issure is morals. Every culture more or less has the same basic set of morals. They differ at NUMEROUS points and I'm not arguing that they are the same, but every culture at its core values a few basic morals. (Unselfishness, loyalty, generosity) There are two interesting things about those morals, 1st everyone agrees that these morals exist. 2nd no one follows them all the time. They are not "just the way people behave." People generally don't behave these ways. They can't be the result of selfishness. Even when someone acts in your favor while breaking one of these morals you still say that that is "wrong." Since these issues are central to every culture, spanning space and time and history, I think that they must be some inherent part of human existence. I don't see a convincing mechanism for them to have arisen naturally, so I think someone outside of the picture must have put them in there. THis must be God. I'm not asserting this God cares about us/interacts in the wold etc. much less asserting the God of a particular religion, but I think because of the existence of the moral law, God needs to exist.
(Some of you will recognize this and you will know where it comes from)
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Is it from Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis? I know he uses an argument similar to that to demonstrate the existence of some sort of superior entity.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I take issue with your first contention that everyone agrees that morals exist. We have relativists and emotivists and all sorts of moral epistemologists who do not.
(But don't worry, I'm not one of them.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For my part, I'm pretty sure morality and moral systems can arise naturally among any population of sentient beings without needing God or a god to give it to them.
Saying the existence of morality is evidence of God is like saying the existence of the universe is evidence of God. Both define God as "whatever caused those things to be", which essentially is once again reaching an unknown and calling it "God". That kind of God just gets smaller and smaller as your knowledge increases. Don't expect much from him. Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Our morals have nothing to do with God. They have to do with our conscience.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
All of the things you listed as universal morals seem to have the common theme of treating your fellow man well. People are universally raised in the presence of other people, form relationships with people, and usually need other people in order to thrive. Given this, I think that treating your fellow man well could easily come from operant conditioning and the ability to adapt to one's environment. Further, the wide disparity between cultures of what constitutes treating your fellow man well, or "Unselfishness, loyalty, generosity", seems to severely undermind your point.
All of that said, I am not trying to tear down your faith. If it brings you joy, I wish you well with it. However, I do not find your reasons very compelling.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Humans have an excellent intuitive understanding of math. The Prisoner's Dilemma is fairly simple math. You might as well say that our ability to catch a thrown ball is proof of your god.
Posted by Alex Johansen (Member # 9090) on :
the universe = deinitely exists, everyone acknowledges its existence, everyone exists in it
morals = not everyone has them, people deny them
God was created so bad people dont behave bad, we are nice out of fear. we fear that when we die we will go to hell for being jerks, but we wont, consequences dont exist, and people are starting to realize this, which is why so much crap is going on in the world, who could honestly believe by killing innocents you would go to heaven? Its just some slick talker that can sell ice (murder) to an eskimo (someone who according to their religion, which is the reason they are doing this wrong act, is wrong)
examples!
the crusades the cruxification 9/11
im sure tehres more, but im only 16, and my knowledge of the world is so small, so i can only name bold events that everyone knows about.
Posted by Geekazoid99 (Member # 8254) on :
Another reason God was created was for there to be something to explain the unexplainable. This thing must know all and see all. Therefore he/ or shee must be the ultimate bringer of justice and must be the one who decides the ultimate laws. Also if such a being exsists shouldn't we praise it for whats it's giving us
That is religion in a nutshell to me
(edit all bad grammer/ hopefully)
[ February 14, 2006, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Geekazoid99 ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gyah. If you're going to be on the right side of the argument, would you please clean up your spelling? You're making atheists look bad.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"Humans have an excellent intuitive understanding of math." Is that not because Math is real? Lewis was dead on. Humans have an intuitive understanding of right and wrong. Even if they chose to ignore it. The concept of right and wrong is also real. There may be as many different manifestations of the concept as there are base number systems. But, I believe that every sentient being "knows" some right and wrong.
Posted by Alex Johansen (Member # 9090) on :
I think of myself as Agnostic, even though I know I'm really Aetheist, I really hop e aGod exists to when I die I can see the rest of the world grow and evolve, but then I would be sad because I missed all the supercool technology, maybe there's a "spectator" type of thing you can do where you "sit" inside someone and experience EVERYTHING they feel.
Assuming there's a Heaven AND a God AND that our brain and heart and all the things we kinda have to leave behind when we die don't REALLY keep us "thinking"
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Does any atheist here think he's going to rock a theist from his beliefs, or do any theists beleive they're going to show the light to an atheist? Just curious, or wondering if all these threads are just self-indulgence
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:1st everyone agrees that these morals exist.
First off, not everyone agrees that these morals exist. Many societies have NOT shared these values.
Now, you might correctly observe that almost all successful societies share these values. But what does that mean?
Either: a) an enormously complicated hypothetical God with a lot of extraneous religious baggage exists and also incidentally passes down moral truths in very ambiguous ways; or b) societies which hold certain values are more likely to be successful than ones which do not.
I lean towards the latter explanation, as it's much lovelier.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Does any atheist here think he's going to rock a theist from his beliefs?
Deconversions do happen, actually.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
yes, they do. So do conversions. I'm asking if you think you personally, by means of a thread, are going to do this.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Morals don't have to have anything to do with God. A universal intuitive sense of right and wrong is needed to survive (evolution ). Ryan, you can't, IMO, use your argument to prove God exists, but you can use it to prove anarchy is an unworkable idea.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: "Humans have an excellent intuitive understanding of math." Is that not because Math is real? Lewis was dead on. Humans have an intuitive understanding of right and wrong. Even if they chose to ignore it. The concept of right and wrong is also real. There may be as many different manifestations of the concept as there are base number systems. But, I believe that every sentient being "knows" some right and wrong.
So, in fact, you are using the copmletely uncheckable statement "Math is real" to prove the equally uncheckable statements "Morals are real" and "God is real"? Ideal Forms went out with Plato!
I suggest you get real.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Shouldn't that be, "I suggest you get dialectic"? Or something.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I was once asked, "Why are you a philosophy major? Everything you need you need to know about ethics is in the Bible."
I laughed because I thought he was joking.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Posted by Smitty: Does any atheist here think he's going to rock a theist from his beliefs, or do any theists beleive they're going to show the light to an atheist? Just curious, or wondering if all these threads are just self-indulgence
For my part, mostly self-indulgence. I loves me a rollicking good debate something good. The chances of any theist converting me are about zero; the internet is too impersonal a medium for that. I won't be saving any theists for the same reason. Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Juxtapose, I just wanted to let you know that I truly enjoyed your wording there.
But back on topic, I don't think the purpose of (any type of) discussion is conversion. A discussion is an exchange of ideas. When we articulate our thoughts and let others examine them, they grow into a coherent and well-considered viewpoint. Through discussion we find our holes and either fill them or reconstruct our arguments. Controversy is a great catalyst for growth.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
[quote]the internet is too impersonal a medium for that[/qoute]
Oh, I can get pretty personal with people on the internet.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh, I believe you can.
It's also incredibly easy for me to abort any conversation that starts to cause me any discomfort with little or no consequenses, certainly much less than a face-to-face.
Edit - Celaeno: thanks!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: yes, they do. So do conversions. I'm asking if you think you personally, by means of a thread, are going to do this.
Of course not. However, I don't see how that fact has any relevance to a discussion about philosophy. Believe it or not, many of us post not to win people over to our side, but to ensure our side is understood. Many of us also post as a means of putting our thoughts out there, welcoming polite criticism that will help us either refine our own positions or perhaps help us learn to better communicate what our positions are. I, personally, have modified my own philosophy in many subtle ways since joining this forum, precisely because of discussions with theists and atheists alike, here. I have also seen others' opinions change sometimes dramatically, but more often subtly, because of some of the things I've written.
To me that is what mature discussion is all about. Everything else is just philosophical masturbation.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). Ryan, you can't, IMO, use your argument to prove God exists, but you can use it to prove anarchy is an unworkable idea.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)