Jump to content

Does God exist?


Solaris

Recommended Posts

I only would like to say that God hasn't been created. You are even not capable to answer my topic. First you study my logic!

I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand what logic is. Before you make any more dismissive, arrogant posts, you need to review your ToK notes. I'm sure you sound perfectly sane in your own head, but communication is two-way. And if you're not prepared to articulate your position, nor mature enough to accept and respond to criticisms of your theory rather than dismiss them, then you are probably better off muttering to yourself in your room rather than make further posts in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those asking who created God, lemme explain this. The fact that He wasn't created is what gives him the qualities of being God... The name Yahweh, or Jehovah, means "I AM", meaning He always existed.

And, if you want to argue who created God, then the question back to you would be who created the universe and where did matter, space, and time come from? You see, in the end it all comes down to one thing. Either the universe and matter always existed, or God always existed....

Forgive me for being pedantic but doesn't the big bang entail, in a way, the non-existence of matter (before it)? My best theory is we either can't understand things on the scale of the universe yet, or won't ever be able to... but that God is an easy first resort...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only would like to say that God hasn't been created. You are even not capable to answer my topic. First you study my logic!

I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand what logic is. Before you make any more dismissive, arrogant posts, you need to review your ToK notes. I'm sure you sound perfectly sane in your own head, but communication is two-way. And if you're not prepared to articulate your position, nor mature enough to accept and respond to criticisms of your theory rather than dismiss them, then you are probably better off muttering to yourself in your room rather than make further posts in this thread.

Actually i didnt want answer like that but insulting everything i said and making the issue personal is not a good behaviour. And deadalus even doesnt know what i am talking about. I say that god is a source and humans are objects but he compares an object and a source. So it is impossible to have a conversation with some guy like this. I didnt want to prolong that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You made the issue personal long ago, when you laced your illogical posts with condescension. If you really want to know what kind of person is impossible to converse with using reason and logic, all you have to do is go over your old posts.

You can call God the source, but that's no different from saying "the Big Bang is the source." You're not proving nor disproving anything with an argument like that, because there's no evidence with which to prove either one way or another. Your position is still fine as that, but you need to stop calling it logic, because it isn't. It's a belief. Far greater minds than yours have tried to verified it, and no one can, because a question like that is beyond verification by human intellect. All an individual can choose to do is whether or not to accept the belief, and just because you have, and someone else hasn't, does not mean you have any more right than the other. So stop dismissing all the criticisms against you (and there are many) as "he doesn't understand me!" Or "you are not capable!" No one of intelligence, regardless of cultural or religious background, ever won an argument using the tactics you're attempting to employ, so why do you think you can?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no scientific evidence that God exists, however, this does NOT prove that he DOESN'T exist because there is no experiment that we know of as yet to prove that he does or doesn't exist. Since this is the way science discovers knowledge. Science means nothing in this argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as humans, we are hardwired to look for scientific proof for everything. I was born into a moderately religious family, but yet with strong enough beliefs that they would probably look down on me if I said I didn't believe in God. Lately, however, I have been questioning everything I hear, in every religious gathering I've been to, discussions, etc. I do have belief in a God or some sort of divine force because I find that the universe is too...spectacular to have been created on its own - but that's just me. That's really as far as my religious beliefs go at the moment. I hate how religion has had an impact on our world; some might have been for good - but a lot has been for the bad.

I believe that God does exist, but I do not completely believe that he cares for us as much as some people think. We are completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I think religion is just faith, and if you believe in something, then no one should really change that. However, if these beliefs begin to negatively interfere with other people, then I think that's where things go wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this cunning argument here about whether one ought to believe in god(s) or not.

I don't find that very cunning. His conclusion sets up a false dichotomy of either Godhood or nihilism, which is simply not the case. I am to presume he hasn't brushed up on the full range of philosophies just yet.

He lost me at the first point, with the whole "Humans are moral animals" point. But even should I concede that to him for argument's sake, he still makes the mistake of making the assumption that Morality is a thing that needs to be measured quantitatively

However, his biggest mistake came here: "The Yardstick cannot be Human, for this is an Empirical Finding that Humans disagree on Morality." He is treating humanity in the singular sense, all 7 billion of us. In reality, there are 7 billion sets of "Moralities" floating around on Earth, which is why one finds that disagreement in the first place. The disagreement comes from Individual Morality, shaped by one's own experiences, actions, and upbringing. Should I accept his assertions that "Humans are moral animals", and that one needs a "Yardstick" to measure Morality, this individual is still making the blatant assertion that Morality is something identical to every human being, which it isn't.

Therefore, the only way this argument can be clever is if one blindly accepts those three somewhat ridiculous assertions and one logical fallacy which this individual has utilized in his post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this cunning argument here about whether one ought to believe in god(s) or not.

I don't find that very cunning. His conclusion sets up a false dichotomy of either Godhood or nihilism, which is simply not the case. I am to presume he hasn't brushed up on the full range of philosophies just yet.

He lost me at the first point, with the whole "Humans are moral animals" point. But even should I concede that to him for argument's sake, he still makes the mistake of making the assumption that Morality is a thing that needs to be measured quantitatively

However, his biggest mistake came here: "The Yardstick cannot be Human, for this is an Empirical Finding that Humans disagree on Morality." He is treating humanity in the singular sense, all 7 billion of us. In reality, there are 7 billion sets of "Moralities" floating around on Earth, which is why one finds that disagreement in the first place. The disagreement comes from Individual Morality, shaped by one's own experiences, actions, and upbringing. Should I accept his assertions that "Humans are moral animals", and that one needs a "Yardstick" to measure Morality, this individual is still making the blatant assertion that Morality is something identical to every human being, which it isn't.

Therefore, the only way this argument can be clever is if one blindly accepts those three somewhat ridiculous assertions and one logical fallacy which this individual has utilized in his post.

I think you miss the point of his cunning. He points out that Humans do indeed disagree on Morality, and his argument is about the existence of at least one God if not more, at least in the ways that a God can be defined. The point he makes is that if morality cannot be defined as such, then it doesn't exist; if any morality can be defined in any way, a God must exist for that way.

It is that cleverness, which you have missed, that makes his argument a cunning one. As for the 'dichotomy' you speak of, that's somewhat nullified by his flexible definition; I don't see any philosophy of ethics or morality that he leaves out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this argument still exists in this day and age. It's like me saying that my favourite colour is green, your favourite colour is blue and yet because we humans have favourite colours, even though we differ on them, there must be a god or the concept of 'favourite colour' would have no meaning. It's codswallop.

Humans are capable of being the originators of all these things, including morality. How could we live in big social groups if we didn't have social rules -- like not killing each other, not stealing each other's stuff etc.? That's where 'morality' comes from, and the concept that it's some kind of solid "object" rather than just a concept is vaguely crazy-seeming, to me at least.

"The Yardstick cannot be Human, for this is an Empirical Finding that Humans disagree on Morality." <--- the major statement that makes no sense in this argument.

Relative means we do not all agree. This person has just clearly stated that morality cannot be measured because it is not absolute and then now is saying that it requires a system of measurement (??!?!?!). They've just themselves argued that it is relative!

Morality is for the individual, not all of humanity combined (because as pointed out, we disagree; we do not share a common sense of morality any more than we share a favourite colour). So to say that we cannot judge the level of our own morality individually because as a species we have different views on it is... well it makes no sense to me. It is an argument that doesn't follow on from itself at all. Why should that mean morality is "out there", when clearly they have just argued it is not? This person is more confused than anything else, it seems to me, unless I've badly misunderstood something :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this cunning argument here about whether one ought to believe in god(s) or not.

I don't find that very cunning. His conclusion sets up a false dichotomy of either Godhood or nihilism, which is simply not the case. I am to presume he hasn't brushed up on the full range of philosophies just yet.

He lost me at the first point, with the whole "Humans are moral animals" point. But even should I concede that to him for argument's sake, he still makes the mistake of making the assumption that Morality is a thing that needs to be measured quantitatively

However, his biggest mistake came here: "The Yardstick cannot be Human, for this is an Empirical Finding that Humans disagree on Morality." He is treating humanity in the singular sense, all 7 billion of us. In reality, there are 7 billion sets of "Moralities" floating around on Earth, which is why one finds that disagreement in the first place. The disagreement comes from Individual Morality, shaped by one's own experiences, actions, and upbringing. Should I accept his assertions that "Humans are moral animals", and that one needs a "Yardstick" to measure Morality, this individual is still making the blatant assertion that Morality is something identical to every human being, which it isn't.

Therefore, the only way this argument can be clever is if one blindly accepts those three somewhat ridiculous assertions and one logical fallacy which this individual has utilized in his post.

I think you miss the point of his cunning. He points out that Humans do indeed disagree on Morality, and his argument is about the existence of at least one God if not more, at least in the ways that a God can be defined. The point he makes is that if morality cannot be defined as such, then it doesn't exist; if any morality can be defined in any way, a God must exist for that way.

It is that cleverness, which you have missed, that makes his argument a cunning one. As for the 'dichotomy' you speak of, that's somewhat nullified by his flexible definition; I don't see any philosophy of ethics or morality that he leaves out.

You seem to be confusing the terms "defined" and "measured." Using existentialist thought, a "defined" system of morality is one that is relevant to one single individual. His term "measured" implies that an individual's morality must be compared and contrasted to another system, which is simply not true. There is no logical reason why Morality is something that needs to be "measured" against something else, whether that's a Yardstick or some other shoddy metaphor for God.

When I define my own morality, I don't need a God to do that. All I need is me, and the existence of me. If I want to "measure" my morality against something else then that's another story. If I'm to believe your argument - "if any morality can be defined in any way, a God must exist for that way" - then we both would have to accept the conclusion that I'm God. And last time I checked, I wasn't.

So my thoughts still stand. There's nothing clever. There's just a pretty argument propped up by those assertions he makes without proof (or even acknowledgment.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this cunning argument here about whether one ought to believe in god(s) or not.

I don't find that very cunning. His conclusion sets up a false dichotomy of either Godhood or nihilism, which is simply not the case. I am to presume he hasn't brushed up on the full range of philosophies just yet.

He lost me at the first point, with the whole "Humans are moral animals" point. But even should I concede that to him for argument's sake, he still makes the mistake of making the assumption that Morality is a thing that needs to be measured quantitatively

However, his biggest mistake came here: "The Yardstick cannot be Human, for this is an Empirical Finding that Humans disagree on Morality." He is treating humanity in the singular sense, all 7 billion of us. In reality, there are 7 billion sets of "Moralities" floating around on Earth, which is why one finds that disagreement in the first place. The disagreement comes from Individual Morality, shaped by one's own experiences, actions, and upbringing. Should I accept his assertions that "Humans are moral animals", and that one needs a "Yardstick" to measure Morality, this individual is still making the blatant assertion that Morality is something identical to every human being, which it isn't.

Therefore, the only way this argument can be clever is if one blindly accepts those three somewhat ridiculous assertions and one logical fallacy which this individual has utilized in his post.

I think you miss the point of his cunning. He points out that Humans do indeed disagree on Morality, and his argument is about the existence of at least one God if not more, at least in the ways that a God can be defined. The point he makes is that if morality cannot be defined as such, then it doesn't exist; if any morality can be defined in any way, a God must exist for that way.

It is that cleverness, which you have missed, that makes his argument a cunning one. As for the 'dichotomy' you speak of, that's somewhat nullified by his flexible definition; I don't see any philosophy of ethics or morality that he leaves out.

You seem to be confusing the terms "defined" and "measured." Using existentialist thought, a "defined" system of morality is one that is relevant to one single individual. His term "measured" implies that an individual's morality must be compared and contrasted to another system, which is simply not true. There is no logical reason why Morality is something that needs to be "measured" against something else, whether that's a Yardstick or some other shoddy metaphor for God.

When I define my own morality, I don't need a God to do that. All I need is me, and the existence of me. If I want to "measure" my morality against something else then that's another story. If I'm to believe your argument - "if any morality can be defined in any way, a God must exist for that way" - then we both would have to accept the conclusion that I'm God. And last time I checked, I wasn't.

So my thoughts still stand. There's nothing clever. There's just a pretty argument propped up by those assertions he makes without proof (or even acknowledgment.)

You clearly aren't a believer then. :(:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how some of you guys are just cranking out page long posts using logical proofs and citing all of your premises with philosophical papers, and then the religious guys walk in and are like "umm i think god exists :) ok you should believe he exists too :) :) :)" which isn't to say that's an accurate representation of all religious people but its still funny.

Edited by Grumps
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it could be argued that all these catastrophes (the one in New Zealand, Australia) and the fact that massive solar flares will wipe out the technological world as we know it by 2013, are works of God.

“Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys.”

Edited by nametaken
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how would one set about proving that one was a moral animal?

You could always read this and note that most definitions of morality require some form of measurement by an external standard in order to be useful.

I'm not an animal. I am a man. And no one needs to measure my morality but me.

Your link is of the broadest possible definition of morality, which I personally - as well as movements such as existentialism - reject, at least partially. Stanford =/= Universal Guide to Everything.

Why do I need an "external standard" for my morals to "be useful?" Do you honestly need someone else to tell you what is right and what is wrong, before you make any possible decision?

P.S. Philosophical definition of man, not biological, kthkx.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...