Philosophy defends God

reply to post by AfterInfinity

what is "God"?

God is everything. The earth, the sun, the universe...he is everything. There is nothing that is not a part of god...because everything in existence is God. Kinda hard to explain but think of it as living inside a God or think the universe is God. Basically saying God is not a person. Just think about it, the universe is infinite. People claim the universe ends somewhere but how do they know, have they seen it?

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17


For most, the only thing that would provide a sufficient proof of God would be Christ flying in to Jerusalem on a winged horse. For me, even that wouldn't be enough. Although, I find myself a believer more often than not.

Even if that were to happen, how would we know that it's really him? So no, for me, it would never be enough no matter what and I'd never trust a god outside of myself. If a god is out there, he should have given me proper instinct to live my life as a human is supposed to - so that is what I'd trust - instinct and logic.

This is the Actual debate between William Craig and Sam Harris.

The subject of this debate is the exact topic of the OP and is argued to the greatest of its possiblity on both side by these 2 champions of philisophical debate.

I think it would be best to hear the best versions of these arguments from the best speakers. The op doesnt hold a candle to the idiotic drivel that Craig can spew. Please watch and be informed.

reply to post by arpgme


Don't blame God because your life is not how you want it to be, grow up. That's the power of free-will we can do whatever we want. It's not God that is holding you back from life its humans that are holding us all back from evolving.

reply to post by Evanzsayz

Our Universe is Finite it is our Multiverse that is INFINITE. The Universe is 13.779 Billion Light Years in diameter. Thus it is Finite...but it is also Expanding by the effect of Dark Energy. Still...there is a finite number of Galaxies thus finite number of Stars and Planets.

A Multiversal State is Infinite and every possibility must exist so the Math dictates. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Our Universe is Finite it is our Multiverse that is INFINITE.

Oh yeah, your right.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Our Universe is Finite it is our Multiverse that is INFINITE.

Oh yeah, your right.

LOL! You have to excuse my chuckle as I have never had someone say...Oh yeah, your right...to me before without a lengthy debate! LOL! Thanks for allowing me some humor! Good Luck! Split Infinity

Originally posted by The GUT
I'd make the bet that everyone who has posted here so far in favor of Relativism would scream bloody murder if some nutcase were to track you down, kidnap you, and mercilessly torture you to an agonizing death.

For the most part, what society and individuals generally define as "good" is what's good for DNA. It's good that people are given the opportunity to procreate and raise offspring in peace. Anything that hampers that is generally defined as "bad." Of course, there's a problem with that when there aren't enough resources for everybody to peacefully procreate. Because while supposedly God could make everything abundant, where's the sport in that? He wants us to fight it out. We have to either take resources from somebody else, or protect the resources we have. And we justify it by telling ourselves that God likes us more than the other people, because we're more devout or favored in some way or whatever. And the other people with their different ways are bad because they're preventing us from having families and raising children. And so on.

So in that respect, sure, if you believe that you are right and you must survive and procreate and do whatever is necessary to make that happen (including destroy and conquer your "enemies"), then it's almost necessary to have a God available to justify your actions. The minute you think your good is right and the other person's good is wrong, you create God. Rather than just be honest and say that my DNA is driving me to kill the other person because they have what I and my family need to survive and I'm strong enough to take it. That's a harsh thing to admit. Much better to have some mythical superbeing take the blame (or credit).

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Haha glad to have helped!

reply to post by dpeacock


Yes! True Unbiased Philosophy Will Align With God and His Word!


The commandments
I am the LORD thy God
Thou shalt have no other gods
No graven images or likenesses
Not take the LORD's name in vain
Remember the sabbath day
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
Thou shalt not covet


The Greatest Commandment

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew Ch. 22


For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:20

reply to post by The GUT

The question of "morality" only makes sense in the light of "intent." "Consciousness" is a prerequisite for the philosophical question.

I see no reason to disagree. Although some do, it seems illogical.

So good lets pretense the discussion with that being a truth.

This still needs further clarification. Is it the consciousness of humankind? Is it the consciousness of humankind and all alienkind? Is it the consciousness of God? What is the fullness of the scope of consciouness that we shall deem the boundary of objectivity??

We have to be clear about this. If we don't iron this out, moral relativism could be argued to be objective in lesser universal contexts. Or vice versa for that matter.

The OP put that boundary at... no boundary God, the creator of all existence, is the consciousness that holds the moral truths. That is the truest sense of objectivity and therefore absolute morality.

I myself am a Deist, and while I believe in "God" I don't believe to understand any thoughts God has on the matter concerning morality. But still I can appreciate the idea of the possibility of absolute morality in the sense the OP meant. I take issue with the horrible moral atrocities most religions ascribe to God.

1.) All we have is the human mind to reason this question.

We can reason there are other minds. We just can't experience their reason.

But understanding the idea those minds exist, and understanding what objecitvity is, we can extend objectivity beyond our limits.

4.) Outside of the aforementioned fetishism, the absolute is that one would consider themselves having been wronged if they were kidnapped and tortured to death.

5.) "Wronged" presupposes that there is a "right."

This is only within the scope of the consciousness of mankind. If that is to be the boundary then I feel absolute morality could be argued fairly well. However, we know there is other forms of consciousness. Animals on our planet and aliens out there. Remember, consciousness itself is the prerequisite for the philosophical question. Animals version likely less intelligent and many aliens likely more so. We can be sure there is a possibility it's wholly different i.e a different "objective" moral truth. Therein lies the problem. Humankind holds murder to be objectivel immoral and another alien race holds it to be objectively 'it's all good'. Which is absolute?

What I am getting at is this.

If we constrain it to human consciousness we can pragmatically view morality as objective, but ultimately, it is relative in light of other consciousness whether alien or God. More to the point because of this scope of consciousness it's most realistic to view our morality as relative.

Originally posted by ResearchEverything777

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:20

Sorry, that is just one man's opinion put into the bible that everybody is quoting as absolute truth.

If you haven't felt God's presence or even come from a place where there is no word for God, that is not your fault.

reply to post by Wertdagf


I am diggin you're another Sam Harris fan! I hope people watch these videos. I have posted some myself. I watched the one you just posted before. Seen others debate Craig. Always entertaining! To be honest I actually like Craig more than some of the others Sam and Hitchens debated.

Originally posted by dpeacock
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist

premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Ok so an absolute moral is a moral that remains the same all the time.

The only way to try and defeat it is to accept relative moral values which is like saying it is moraly equivelant to eat a deer as it is to eat a baby

God has absolutely no bearing on the morality question.

Morality is simply what people, or persons, say are right or wrong. You want to say God dictates what is right or wrong, I say people and communities dictate what is right or wrong. There is little difference really. If we dictate right and wrong, that does not mean we cannot use reason to determine what behavior should be deemed acceptable, and what should not be. It is obviously wrong to eat babies because it harms them, and their families. This is not absolute morality, it is relative morality using reason to dictate acceptable behavior. Simple.

If morality comes from God, basically you don't have morality at all, you have a system of "might makes right", or a simple dictatorship where whatever God says goes. If God says it's okay to eat babies, then it is. This is no system of morals or ethics, unless you assume morality is external to God, and then we have the same problem with or without a creator.

I wonder if God is up there bemoaning the lack of absolute morality, because he doesn't have anyone to answer to.

What do you think, OP? God must be the ultimate nihilist, because everything he does is automatically good.

How can anything possibly have any meaning for him? He must get very depressed.

reply to post by humphreysjim

God has absolutely no bearing on the morality question.

Obviously if God exists it would absolutely have bearing......

What you mean to say is if God does not exist it has no bearing.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

God has absolutely no bearing on the morality question.

Obviously if God exists it would absolutely have bearing......

What you mean to say is if God does not exist it has no bearing.

What I mean is, the problem of absolute morality is not connected to whether God exists or not. The whole concept of absolute morality is nonsense. What believers mean by it is, there is someone greater than them who decides what is right, and this is no more a system of morality than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Take the OP who attacks subjective morality by saying "if there is no absolute morality then eating babies is okay, and if you think that, you're sick". God does not solve that problem, he makes it worse, because subjective morality proponents can at least use reason to determine that eating babies is not okay, but if God decides it is okay to eat babies, then believers have to declare eating babies as good and there is no way out of it.

It should be clear that "might makes right", or "morality dictated by God" is no more a system of absolute morality than any atheistic scenario where reason dictates morality. Absolute morality is just a meaningless sham that really means "more powerful being says something is good therefore it is good", of course, the latter sounds far less flattering to believers and makes for a less convincing argument.

GOD..... PA!!!!

One only need to glimpse at the Old Testament to see the nonsense that is "absolute morality".

Morals obviously are not unchanging, as it is no longer deemed okay, even by the Biblical God, to stone kids to death for insulting their parents.

One can believe in absolute values and not believe in God. ( See my last post) . The way those absolute values manifest can be different. By analogy, one can believe in language ( a French speaker for example) and not believe in or understand English.
BTW Humphreysjim is that Bobby Fischer, as your icon?