Does God exist? (19 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

'.. because we are alive, and we think, and we did it ourselves.'

Our lives don't matter- unless we are achieving some greater good. The question is whether that greater good is in the eyes of humanity or the eyes of God. Much human 'achievement' (even religious achievement) is self-aggrandising vanity. We don't find ultimately find meaning in self and self-congratulation. There are universal values that are bigger than that and worth working for. Doing that brings us closer to an experience of whether or not God is real. I find that He is.

It's funny; the more I speak to Christians, the more I find that each and everyone is a picture of juxtaposition. One one hand, there is the vast arrogance of believing that there is a personal God and that we were created by Him for some purpose of his design, or "His plan". On the other, there is the vast and horrifying insecurity of having nothing to live for without it. It's a wonder you're not all mad, with that burden of contradiction.

However in regard to your post, I think it's a fallacy that our lives "don't matter" unless we achieve some "greater good". Does that mean something humanitarian, or writing a great book, or reproducing (surely the greatest fulfillment of our biology)? I don't see it as vanity to see language and morality and appreciation of beauty as achievements; we've been to our own moon, and surely that is something unPlanned by a God that we can be proud of.

 

[darkliight]

Bah, I don't even know how to answer this question properly.

My life can't be measured simply against another humans life to attain value. It needs to be measured against something objective and something outside of humanity. Without this it is a creation unto itself and creates it's own value. This is fine, but you must realize that this value and worth is only pretend. It's only worth something because god says it's worth something. Which as far as I can see, means its worth nothing, or at best, we don't know that it's worth anything.

I made one change to your post, can you tell me what else changes now, and why?

 

[KFunk]

Brad, a few comments on some of the interesting sources you have cited/provided:

This happens [i.e. the conditions for denying p obtain] if and only if [amongst other conditions]:

(a) p is such that if it were true, there would exist positive epistemic considerations (evidence or any other epistemic ground) indicating its truth; and

Your quote tells only one side of the story. Sure, if god's existence provides no 'positive epistemic considerations' then the conditions for denying god won't obtain (using your cited schema), but surely neither will the conditions for affirming god's existence. If, further using your epistemic denial schema, in the case of god's existence either (a) positive epistemic considerations are lacking or (b) such considerations are beyond human access then you have effectively established a situation in which you have no rational basis from which to affirm the existence of god. Double-edged sword methinks.

A couple things I wanted to comment on from "The absurdity of life without god.":

The universe is doomed to die anyway. In the end it makes no difference whether the universe ever existed or not. Therefore, it is without ultimate significance.

The question which really needs to be asked here is 'significant to whom?' If it is meant 'from the perspective of a non-conscious, material universe' then my answer is 'so what?' The important thing is that our lives can still have meaning from our own perspective - meaning that we create ourselves. Sure, you can feel remorse over the fact that there is not ultimate validator of meaning, but that's when you grab life by the horns and ride it for all its worth. He quotes a lot of Sartre and Camus and while it is true that they identified a core of meaninglessness to life the article fails to address the way in which they advocated self-creation and their suggestions as to how man-made meaning can be embraced. In some ways I don't think theists are being creative enough when they make these claims of meaninglessness.

The same comments apply to issues of 'purposelessness'.

In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgements.

I think we discussed the Euthyphro Dilemma before? I think there are good arguments to suggest that morality is independent from god, even if god does exist.

Nonetheless, I don't think that objective right/wrong is a coherent concept even with a god, so I find it hard to buy into this issue.

 

[BradCube]

So if I'm reading you right, you require an outside observer to validate your worth. That's okay, and not uncommon. But wouldn't the universe itself serve that purpose? Why does that observer need to be omnipotent, and omniscient, and personal, and conjured?

Well I don't see how the universe is any different than myself considering that I am part of the universe - not to mention that the universe too will eventually die.

The observer needs to be omnipotent because it needs to be permanent. The other factors seem negotiable though

Fun, ain't it. It's okay, Brad, I had a smaller version of this a couple of weeks ago with regards to our species (which is detailed in this thread actually!).

Oh, it is joyous

And with that I'm off too bed. I have an early start at the gym tomorrow. Night all

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Oooooh here come the narrow-minded atheist raptors to rip apart those who have faith.

 

[darkliight]

Oooooh here come the narrow-minded atheist raptors to rip apart those who have faith.

Yeah ... I think most people here would quickly change their mind if a god showed up (or gave some rock solid evidence for its existence). How do you feel about humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor though?

 

[Kwayera]

Oooooh here come the narrow-minded atheist raptors to rip apart those who have faith.

That's actually a contradiction in terms - atheists are generally the most open-minded of all, again by definition. You believe in one God alone, and that all others are false or blasphemous, no matter how much more logical than your own beliefs. You, indeed, are an atheist to all gods but your own :-

- atheists simply "believe" (although that itself is a fallacy, as atheism is a lack of belief) in one god less than you.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

That's actually a contradiction in terms - atheists are generally the most open-minded of all, again by definition.

In theory, yes. 99% of the atheists I talk to in a religious context are dead set stubborn. An atheist simply does not want to believe. If God did send down some clear sign an atheist would merely attribute it to something else.

You believe in one God alone, and that all others are false or blasphemous, no matter how much more logical than your own beliefs. You, indeed, are an atheist to all gods but your own :-

I believe that my own beliefs are the most logical and if I was proven wrong I would change my beliefs accordingly. This is the mindset of most. Anyway the statement I made was aimed at their manner in a religious discussion. Most of the time in my experience they are very very narrow and know that that they are right, and abuse others for not thinking the same way. Obviously I do not know that God exists for certain and I don't act like I do; I would just like the same treatment from an atheist.

Yeah ... I think most people here would quickly change their mind if a god showed up (or gave some rock solid evidence for its existence). How do you feel about humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor though?

I don't have an opinion on evolution, that's just how it happened I guess. The worst kind of theists (or anyone for that matter) are those who believe in something that has been proven wrong, like the 6000yo earth.

 

[Ennaybur]

In theory, yes. 99% of the atheists I talk to in a religious context are dead set stubborn. An atheist simply does not want to believe. If God did send down some clear sign an atheist would merely attribute it to something else.



I believe that my own beliefs are the most logical and if I was proven wrong I would change my beliefs accordingly. This is the mindset of most. Anyway the statement I made was aimed at their manner in a religious discussion. Most of the time in my experience they are very very narrow and know that that they are right, and abuse others for not thinking the same way. Obviously I do not know that God exists for certain and I don't act like I do; I would just like the same treatment from an atheist.



I don't have an opinion on evolution, that's just how it happened I guess. The worst kind of theists (or anyone for that matter) are those who believe in something that has been proven wrong, like the 6000yo earth.

No seriously, at least 90% of the atheists I know actually really wish that they could believe in a God. We would take any proof of god with joy. Wouldn't it be a lovely thing? Unfortunately, there is no evidence afaik and I would be fooling myself - something I'd prefer less than pretending there's a god.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Because anyone who believes in God is a complete retard and has to pretend that God exists to live with himself. Also religion totally causes all these wars and it is used to control people and gain money and power, and science has all the answers, right?

 

[Sammy-Blue]

In theory, yes. 99% of the atheists I talk to in a religious context are dead set stubborn. An atheist simply does not want to believe. If God did send down some clear sign an atheist would merely attribute it to something else.

Because Christians aren't stubborn about their beliefs or anything. I'd much rather listen to an atheist explain why they think there is no god rather than listen to someone explain why there is (because they CAN'T, that's not to say atheists can disprove the existance, but they do a better job for their part).

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Yes nobody likes Christians and I do find a lot of them to be dropkicks, especially Catholics.

 

[Kwayera]

^ Because anyone who believes in God is a complete retard and has to pretend that God exists to live with himself. Also religion totally causes all these wars and it is used to control people and gain money and power, and science has all the answers, right?

Most Christians aren't mad. But their beliefs certainly are.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Tell us about what you believe

Until then, stfu

 

[bigboyjames]

why do religious peopel find it so easy to belive.

 

[BradCube]

Your quote tells only one side of the story. Sure, if god's existence provides no 'positive epistemic considerations' then the conditions for denying god won't obtain (using your cited schema), but surely neither will the conditions for affirming god's existence. If, further using your epistemic denial schema, in the case of god's existence either (a) positive epistemic considerations are lacking or (b) such considerations are beyond human access then you have effectively established a situation in which you have no rational basis from which to affirm the existence of god. Double-edged sword methinks.

Methinks I agree with you here - although to be fair I was only giving the second half of the response in the email I received. The first part dealt with positive epistemic considerations or things that we would expect and do find (although I personally found a few of them to be unconvincing). The real reason, for me posting the quote that I did, was to provide a solution to how we should deal with the standard "fictional characters" that most compare God to (unicorns, fairies etc)

A couple things I wanted to comment on from "The absurdity of life without god."



The question which really needs to be asked here is 'significant to whom?' If it is meant 'from the perspective of a non-conscious, material universe' then my answer is 'so what?' The important thing is that our lives can still have meaning from our own perspective - meaning that we create ourselves. Sure, you can feel remorse over the fact that there is not ultimate validator of meaning, but that's when you grab life by the horns and ride it for all its worth.

I still can't fathom how one can feel a genuine sense of meaning in their lives, if they know that very meaning it is self created. Essentially what you seem to be saying is that, even though there is no real meaning or validator of meaning, it's better to pretend to have meaning and try and enjoy the ride while we can. I'm sorry, but I could not allow myself to pretend that I have meaning my whole life when I in fact do not. Even with life's extensive complexities and "fun" I think I would find it quite hard to become caught up in it to the point that I forget about ever having meaning. I also fail to see why believing to have meaning, is better that believing that there is no meaning since neither are objective truths. Why should I even want to believe I have meaning, if there is no validator of meaning anyway?

He quotes a lot of Sartre and Camus and while it is true that they identified a core of meaninglessness to life the article fails to address the way in which they advocated self-creation and their suggestions as to how man-made meaning can be embraced. In some ways I don't think theists are being creative enough when they make these claims of meaninglessness.

I think theists recognize that it's either self created or it is not. There is no place for creativity since anything apart from God would all be equally futile - or at least, if not futile, then simply equal.

I think we discussed the Euthyphro Dilemma before? I think there are good arguments to suggest that morality is independent from god, even if god does exist.

Nonetheless, I don't think that objective right/wrong is a coherent concept even with a god, so I find it hard to buy into this issue.

My solution to the Euthyphro dilemma was to suggest that good, bad and morality itself are based on Gods character. This way God neither chooses to follow morality (it is not independant of him) nor create it.

 

[BradCube]

why do religious peopel find it so easy to belive.

They don't. Or at least, I often find it hard to believe.

 

[BradCube]

I made one change to your post, can you tell me what else changes now, and why?

I suppose the point your trying to make is that if God did exist, why would He provide validation to meaning? I suppose my reply would be to suggest that you misunderstand the "greatness" (for lack of a better term) of God. If God, is the source of absolutely everything that has and ever will exist, then I think it fair enough that what he believes to be true, is in fact true.

EDIT: Just realised Kwayera that this means I will have to retract what I said before about the other factors of God being negotiable (for the above reason). I beg of your forgiveness

 

[Sammy-Blue]

youre right. lifes pretty shit, and makes no sense, but what can you do. theres some good things though (eg. math - might be worthless but its so damn exciting nevertheless )

Are you misunderstood by everyone as well?

*slit slit*

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I still can't fathom how one can feel a genuine sense of meaning in their lives, if they know that very meaning it is self created.

To be honest I don't think people feel this 'sense of meaning' in their life as they meander along their business, I think the only time such a thing exists is upon moments of self reflection... In such moments it feels genuine because it is, I would liken it somewhat to when we engage in commerce, the entire monetary system is a human construct (a piece of paper with $10 on it is only valued as such because we've decided it is).

why do religious peopel find it so easy to belive.

Well they don't find it easy at all, in fact for most of them they find it impossible. They don't believe.