"Why does there have to be a God?"

[crowonsnow]

This question was posed to me on Facebook…

“Paul, why does there have to be a God…”

What is a good response?

“God” is a pronoun. So I think the question is better asked, “Why does there have to be an Athena,” or “Why does there have to be a Hurrican,” Or why does there have to be an Allah or a Yahweh or a Thor or an Eastre or a Christ or a Brahma?

All of these gods are but different god concepts. So the better question is “Why are there god concepts?”

I personally think there are god concepts primarily because our ancestors were scientifically illiterate. That isn’t saying they weren’t clever or curious, only that they hadn’t yet invented the tools that would eventually come to compete with their own instinctive superstitions. Thus their god concepts, their “gods,” their unscientific explanations for how their experiences made sense to them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“God” is a pronoun. So I think the question is better asked, “Why does there have to be an Athena,” or “Why does there have to be a Hurrican,” Or why does there have to be an Allah or a Yahweh or a Thor or an Eastre or a Christ or a Brahma?

All of these gods are but different god concepts. So the better question is “Why are there god concepts?”

I personally think there are god concepts primarily because our ancestors were scientifically illiterate. That isn’t saying they weren’t clever or curious, only that they hadn’t yet invented the tools that would eventually come to compete with their own instinctive superstitions. Thus their god concepts, their “gods,” their unscientific explanations for how their experiences made sense to them.

2 mistakes here

1. you are assuming that there is some parity of religious thought, there is not, Christianity is demonstrably true. other faits are demonstrably false.
2. science doesn’t compete with faith it proves it. its a misunderstanding of science and the current state of scientific research to think there is some competition. unfortunatley far more people misunderstand science, than understand it.

 

[cerad]

How so? Can you refute the statement that true morality is impossible without a belief in an external moral authority?

Maybe but I would have to ask you to define what “true morality” means and to demonstrate it’s existence. Probably a bit off topic so maybe you could create a new thread?

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

why why why???well…lets say the universe is like a combustion engine.like the engine it has mechanical parts that interact.there are also various gases and chemicals that mix.and when they mix in their various ways different things happen.ofcos when the mechanical parts and the gases work in a particular order certain things happen.actually these occurances are very predictable. because these occurances are far more ordered than we like to think.in fact what we get from an engine is mechanical power.we are able to move an object by controlling the engines (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs by using a reasonable amount of intellegence.ofcos the universe is just the same. infact its the same every where in the universe.thats how ordered the universe actually is.now how is it that there is so much order in the universe?from the unimaginably minute to the overwhelmingly large! by sheer chance?or by some greater intellegence?

 

[cerad]

now how is it that there is so much order in the universe?from the unimaginably minute to the overwhelmingly large! by sheer chance?or by some greater intellegence?

If we chose “greater intelligence” as the answer then we would then be confronted with the question of where the greater intelligence came from. I suppose we could say that an even greater intelligence created it but that doesn’t seem to buy us much.

So sheer chance seems be the only reasonable answer to your riddle.

 

[tomarin]

But is that a good place to start, seeing that that particular theism it is so detailed, & so, presupposes so much ?​

Yes, insofar as theism is a precondition to belief in any particular religion (generally speaking), it makes sense to address that first and then Christianity, or whichever religion the OP believes is true, later, if necessary.

Also, that was what the OP asked for, an argument for theism. He didn’t ask, why does there have to be a Christian God (or Muslim God, etc.).

If the first cause argument is valid, it is universally valid. It doesn’t just apply to Christianity; it doesn’t even address Christianity.

 

[tomarin]

There are mysteries if one is a Christian, & if one is an atheist, & in other positions. Neither POV can be disqualified on the ground that it fails to answer all puzzles, because other POVs also leave various thing as puzzles, as unexplained.​

Not sure I follow you, Gottle. What does atheism “explain” better than theism?

An Epicurean would probably say that the conscience is composed of exeedingly fine atoms. Is there such a “thing” as conscience ?

When you say “is there such a thing”, do you mean, is the conscience a concrete thing, or does the conscience exist? I doubt it’s anything tangible, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m 100% positive that it exists, but obviously I can’t prove it to you, any more than I can prove free will exists. I’m presuming you accept its existence as part of universal human experience.

It might be no more than a disturbance in brain electricity, or something equally obscure and equally reducible to what we are composed of. It doesn’t have to be spiritual, or even a real entity. It may be a relation between entities.

To me, saying it’s just electricity doesn’t really explain the qualities of a person’s moral conscience. It explains it away if you will, but doesn’t really account for its existence, or its purpose, or its origins. I wouldn’t absolutely deny the possibility that there’s an electromagnetic component to the conscience, though I’m not aware of any scientific evidence for that idea; however I would still believe it’s more than that, too.

Ultimately I find the best and most reasonable explanation for the conscience is exactly what you said: it is a relation between entities, those entities being God and the human individual, respectively.

 

[tomarin]

Maybe but I would have to ask you to define what “true morality” means and to demonstrate it’s existence. Probably a bit off topic so maybe you could create a new thread?

I guess what I meant was a morality that is pursued out of a genuine concern for justice and truth, and not just a reflexive action.

What I’m getting at is that there are any number of atheists, both principled ones and “lifestyle” ones, who are nice people and generally try to treat others as they would themselves like to be treated either because they were taught by their parents to do so or because it’s a deep-rooted part of the human condition; maybe they even have moral concerns like the humane treatment of animals or vegetarianism.

Yet because they’re atheists there’s nothing in terms of solid principle undergirding their moral agency. Since they don’t believe in an external moral authority they are themselves the ultimate arbiter of what’s right or wrong – and so is everyone else. It follows that if one day they decide to stop being “nice” and plough their car through a sidewalk crowded with pedestrians, there isn’t anyone to tell them authoritatively “that was wrong”. (There are people who would tell them this, of course, and a legal system that would punish them, but these are just humans like the atheist so they possess no greater authority than any other human).

This is the paradox that Nietsche wrote about. The West doesn’t believe in God anymore, yet ordinary people go about their lives behaving basically as if Christian morality were still valid. His call is for people to recognize this and make a decisive break with what he believed was a “slave mentality”. Until that happens, most people will continue to lead meek slave lives (in his eyes).

 

[cerad]

It follows that if one day they decide to stop being “nice” and plough their car through a sidewalk crowded with pedestrians, there isn’t anyone to tell them authoritatively “that was wrong”.

I’m not following your argument. Let’s suppose it was a Catholic behind the wheel. And afterward the Pope comes along and says “that was wrong”. What exactly would that accomplish?

I guess what I meant was a morality that is pursued out of a genuine concern for justice and truth, and not just a reflexive action.

Are you saying that it’s impossible to have a genuine concern for truth and justice without a God?

 

[tomarin]

I’m not following your argument. Let’s suppose it was a Catholic behind the wheel. And afterward the Pope comes along and says “that was wrong”. What exactly would that accomplish?

It wouldn’t accomplish anything, but that’s nowhere near what I’m advocating. What I’m saying is that without a supreme moral authority all of the moral rules that make our society a livable place lose their force because there is no moral authority above the realm of human affairs to back them up. If you banish God the only authorities left are all men (and women), no one of which has any more intrinsic moral authority than any other. When each individual assumes the role of her own supreme moral authority, morality as a code of behavior that governs all becomes a logical impossiblity.

The paradox of the modern world is that for whatever reason people, for the most part, in their everyday lives choose to follow moral rules derived from Christianity even though we live in an age of profound skepticism. Nietzche believed that it was imperative for real men to cast off this pseudo-religious morality and exert their own authority in an open, no-holds-barred fashion, or risk living and dying as slaves to Christianity, or its ghost.

Are you saying that it’s impossible to have a genuine concern for truth and justice without a God?

No, but because I’m a theist I believe that God is the ultimate source of these things, so rejecting him is just throwing up a roadblock to these things. But atheists can certainly understand these concepts and even believe they are advancing them. In a strictly moral context however, for the reasons outlined above, I have trouble understanding how a moral system can function where everyone is their own supreme moral authority.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you saying that it’s impossible to have a genuine concern for truth and justice without a God?

i will.

we can in fact, quantify the actual application of attempts at a G-d-free morality.

in the last century, officially atheistic and functionally atheistic regimes exterminated more than 100 million people.

cambodia, vietnam, soviets, china, germany, etc, etc, etc

morality without G-d doesnt work from experience

 

[cerad]

i will.

we can in fact, quantify the actual application of attempts at a G-d-free morality.

in the last century, officially atheistic and functionally atheistic regimes exterminated more than 100 million people.

cambodia, vietnam, soviets, china, germany, etc, etc, etc

morality without G-d doesnt work from experience

Officially atheistic. Sure except for Germany.

Functionality atheistic? No such thing. Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs in gods. And please take a look at counter examples such as Sweden, Netherlands and Australia.

 

[cerad]

When each individual assumes the role of her own supreme moral authority, morality as a code of behavior that governs all becomes a logical impossiblity.

Which explains rather nicely why we don’t have a single code that governs all.

The paradox of the modern world is that for whatever reason people, for the most part, in their everyday lives choose to follow moral rules derived from Christianity even though we live in an age of profound skepticism.

I’m a bit skeptical of the claim that Christians invented the notion that murder was something to be avoided. I suspect it goes back much further.

And I was under the impression that abortion, sex outside of marriage, pornography and many other staples of modern life are against the principles of Christianity?

 

[WAYNE_LEYDS]

If we chose “greater intelligence” as the answer then we would then be confronted with the question of where the greater intelligence came from. I suppose we could say that an even greater intelligence created it but that doesn’t seem to buy us much.

So sheer chance seems be the only reasonable answer to your riddle.

your conclusion is lacking in that you do not percieve the universe as a highly complex but well ordered machine.i must assume you do not know that time is actualy a dimension of the universe.and based on this assumption i can see why you rather accept chance than intellegence.ofcause your car you drive was made by chance too.

 

[cerad]

your conclusion is lacking in that you do not percieve the universe as a highly complex but well ordered machine.i must assume you do not know that time is actualy a dimension of the universe.and based on this assumption i can see why you rather accept chance than intellegence.ofcause your car you drive was made by chance too.

Strange. I thought my car was made by General Motors.

So how does this relate to higher intelligence? Are you saying god is not complex, not well ordered, and doesn’t have a time factor? It’s all very confusing.

 

[tomarin]

Which explains rather nicely why we don’t have a single code that governs all.

I think we do; it’s called natural law.

I’m a bit skeptical of the claim that Christians invented the notion that murder was something to be avoided. I suspect it goes back much further.

It’s practically universal among religions to prohibit murder. That’s another sign, to me, that natural law exists (and another reason to believe in God!).

And I was under the impression that abortion, sex outside of marriage, pornography and many other staples of modern life are against the principles of Christianity?

Right. I see the modern world as waging an ongoing war with traditional Christian morality, progressively eroding its foundational status in our culture. 50 years ago the very idea of gay marriage would have been unthinkable to both non-religious and believers; now it’s presented by its advocates as something that is infinitely reasonable, a right that gay people are owed, no less.

Anyway, I chose the example of the homicidal driver to illustrate the point that moral agency informs our most straightforward, everyday decisions; it’s not necessary to get into relatively esoteric topics such as the morality of pornography or gay marriage to make that point.

 

[tomarin]

Which explains rather nicely why we don’t have a single code that governs all.

It seems you believe in moral relativism?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Officially atheistic. Sure except for Germany.

Functionality atheistic? No such thing. Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs in gods. And please take a look at counter examples such as Sweden, Netherlands and Australia.

counter examples?

when have those countries governments been officially or functionally atheistic?

indeed they had state churches until relatively recently.

the nazis were functionally atheistic, the rest stated outright their atheism. the political atmosphere of europe didn’t really allow for that. in fact even today germans pay a church tax.

 

[tomarin]

Are you saying that it’s impossible to have a genuine concern for truth and justice without a God?

Just to clarify, Cerad (if you’re still reading this): I don’t think people lose their moral agency just because they do not believe in God. They continue to make moral decisions. It’s just that there’s no explicit reason for it, which is a conundrum.

 

[taylor007]

I Read A Story, It Goes That Isaac Newton Showed His Scientist Friend A Model Of The Solar System. Which Was Very Much Like The Real Thing, Scientifically Speaking!the Friend Came To The Same Conclusion As You. That It Was Cool.awesome!! But For Any Scientist It Does Beg The Question.and The Scientist Did Ask… Who Made It?ofcourse Isaac Answered No One Did. It Just Is! The Scientist Begun To Do Measurments And Found It To Be Mathematically Beautiful!! He Asked Again. Who Made It? Isaac Again Said No One Did.so The Friend Grew Frustrated And Said Thats Impossible!some One Had To Have Made It!!but Isaac Said Nah!! It Just Is.by Chance!!the Scientist Said Non Sense Some One Must Of Made It.some Thing Of Such Mathematical Accuracy Cant Just Appear!! Isaac Then Said Okidoki!so What You Telling Me Is That Some One Had To Have Made This… But The Real Thing Much More Complex In Magnitude And Beauty Has No Creater?is That Not Strange Or What?

Simple yet elegant.
Good one,Wayne.