That is called delusion. If you are happy and comfortable with the possibility of living a deluded life, by all means... <object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o7eU1WQvqao?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o7eU1WQvqao?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object> I want to be on the cutting edge of science. I love the wonder of not knowing what is out there. Like Carl Sagan, I feel that the wonder of the universe is ample, and religion is unneccesary. Carl Sagan
My thoughts exactly. In case you somehow managed to miss this the first time. <object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNcWdV0LYG4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNcWdV0LYG4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>
What does it matter if there is an objective standard for God? I am not arguing for one, except that God must be the maximally great being. Maximally great in all areas... as in omnipotent, perfectly good, etc... That is a definition for what we might call god. But say all religions and atheists have got it wrong. Say there is something out there that is maximally great, but beyond that we know nothing about it. Does that at all affect my argument? I think it doesn't. I am saying that without some transcendent being, whether we can conceive of him or not, there is no place to base morality in an objective sense. As in where it originates from, not how we come to know what it is. If morality is simply a figment of our imagination, and is something that has helped us to survive as a species, then it is subjective. There is no reason to think that there can be an objective standard for it. Because it could change or could have been different. And by objective I mean wrong regardless of what people believe, like I think most would agree that killing newborn babies for sport is wrong. Not just because we have evolved to think this way, but because it is actually wrong. Now if you do not think morality is subjective, then that is fine. I don't believe anyone could tenably live that way, as there would be no standard for right or wrong outside of society. But if you do believe that there are things, such as the examples above, which are objectively right and wrong, then please explain where this belief originates from. As in why you think it is wrong for someone who chooses to disobey there natural instincts to beat a child instead of loving it, assuming society would never find out and he/she could get away with it. Well then the atheist has to explain where his or her morality stems from. If it is from evolution, and is a byproduct of our specie's survival, then it is subjective. On this view, the only reason we think anything is good or bad is because it in some way helped us in the past survive as a species. So if something that we see as bad now would have helped us in the past, then it would be seen as good now. It seems ridiculous that something like rape is only viewed as wrong because of evolutionary and societal factors. Is there any evidence that morality is not objective? My evidence is human moral intuition. Once again, if it is there strictly because of evolution, then the only reason some things are right and some things are wrong is because they helped or hurt our survival as a species. Once again, if you hold to subjective morality then that's fine. But if you think things are objectively moral or immoral, then I would like to know what you base them on. And thanks. It did not come off as disrespectful.
How am I boxing in God? Because I'm saying that objections to Him existing that present illogical scenarios are invalid? You are basically arguing that we can't know anything about God. That is your opinion, but why should I accept it? And once again, how is saying that God cannot act against His character boxing Him in? Because He can't do whatever He wants, up to and including changing Himself? That is a ridiculous objection IMO. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do absolutely everything that anyone could ever imagine, such as making a spherical triangle (although no one can imagine that because it is logically incoherent). It means that He is all powerful, and can do anything that is logically possible and that He sets out to do. If you want to call this boxing God in then fine. But I never asserted, and I don't think anyone would assert that God can do things that are logically impossible, such as make a married bachelor.
Well we are trying to ensure our species survival, so I guess so. What do you mean by religious books depict a far more ideal world than darwin does? In what ways? I would like clarification on this so I don't misrepresent you with my answer. Thanks. Ok, but what if I don't want to build a world that thrives from our own natural instincts to help each other? What if I wanted to cause as much chaos as I could in the world? What is wrong with me doing that. Ya species survival is important, but if I don't care about that then I have no reason to abide by my natural instincts, assuming I can get past them. On your view, no one has any right to condemn anyone else, because species survival is no more important than someone's personal agenda in the grand scheme of things.
The spherical triangle comparison is interesting. You have essentially defined God as an omnipotent but immutable entity. To me, that is a self-contradiction. Something that doesn't change can't do anything, so it doesn't make sense to say it is all-powerful. God can't have both attributes, just as a shape can't simultaneously be a sphere and a triangle.
I meant more that His nature is immutable, not that He cannot effect change. His nature can be immutable, as in it won't change, and God could still act. Does this answer your question or am I misunderstanding?
God being omnipotent means he can do absolutely everything that anyone could ever imagine. It's the meaning of the word omnipotent!! You Jesus guys crack me up.
You're seriously claiming that good and bad have never changed in the history of humanity? You've got to be kidding. Oh man, I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread again.
It depends on what you're asking. Have different societies thought that different acts were good or bad at some point throughout history? Why yes they have. I believe the Spartans practiced infanticide actually. However, does that mean that infanticide was good back then? If we were transported back in time somehow, should we just be ok with the killing of babies because society thinks it is ok? I don't think so. Also, the fact that people have differing views on morality doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist. The argument you are proposing is this (using infanticide as an example): 1) We (our society) believe that infanticide is wrong. 2) Some societies from the past believed that infanticide was good. 3) Therefore, objective morality doesn't exist. This is a non-sequitur argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The premises are talking about specific societies views on morality, while the conclusion is saying that something outside of people's opinion's doesn't exist.
Yes some people believe that omnipotence means what you said. I would argue that most theists do not understand it this way. If logic is grounded in who God is, which it must be the theist is to avoid a sort of Euthyphro Dilemma with logic, then why would anyone expect God to act contrary to what He is. If God does not meet your definition of omnipotence then I think most theists would be fine with that.
Sort of, but more questions arise. If God's nature is unchanging, he acts only in accordance to this unchanging nature and nothing else, and he CAN NOT act any other way -- does he have free will? And how can a being who does not have free will (a) be a moral being, or (b) be an omniscient being?
Maybe the answer is in that God will not act in any other way than His nature, not that He can't. So saying God cannot lie could mean that God cannot lie because He will not act outside of His nature.
Ok. So God can do wrong, but he just won't because he will never act against his nature. But why, again, is it necessary for "objective morality" to be defined within God's nature rather than outside of it? If your answer is that because that would mean God is dependent on something external to himself, that isn't an argument that objective morality requires God.
It always amuses me to see people attempt to fit God within the bounds of human logic and understanding. How do you define a being that exists outside the boundaries of space and time? Logical arguments are pointless.
How would objective morality be defined outside of God? What else would there be to ground morality in? If there is some external moral law, sort of like the law of gravity, then you are correct and God wouldn't be required for objective morality. But morality is an abstract concept, so I don't believe that some sort of law could ever be found that somehow makes conscious beings subject to morality. It doesn't seem that a physical law could control something abstract like that.
You're basically arguing that EVERY abstract concept couldn't exist without "God". What about love? Can people not love without "God". What, love is based in science? No ****....well, then why can't morality be? It can. It can be based on evolution. It can be based on humanity, another abstract concept which itself can be based on any number of things. Or nothing at all. Because basing an abstract concept on "God" is akin to basing it on nothing at all. But continuing to point this out to you is useless. You believe strongly in God, strongly in the Christian form of God, and have crafted some kind of psuedo-philosophy so you can fit abstract concepts like morality into your God-based world view.
I will never understand the push some people display for E-vangelizing. Isn't there a less antagonistic place to fish for men? Has anyone ever gotten into heaven with an email invoice? Some posters here sound exactly like those "brave" on-campus evangelists who yell at college kids about fire and brimstone and how sex leads to hell, all in vein as if they are standing strong in the flooding presence of evil, when they really just want to feel prouder about earning tougher Jesus Points for when they report back to base.
God is not physical if that is what you mean. I believe most theists will agree that God is immaterial.
