"Why does there have to be a God?"

[ready]

Yes, MindOverMatter.

 

[ready]

There has to be a God because without the Word (Logos, who is Jesus) there would be no meaning, just chaos and emptiness.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There has to be a God because without the Word (Logos, who is Jesus) there would be no meaning, just chaos and emptiness.

I mean no disrespect, but i think your being too generous.

If there was no God, there would be nothing.

 

[ready]

I mean no disrespect, but i think your being too generous.

If there was no God, there would be nothing.

You are right.

 

[tomarin]

If somebody doesn’t believe god exist, they also don’t believe the attributes you apply to him such as god being good. Because they don’t believe there is a “him” to apply attributes to. So if a person doesn’t believe god, it does not neccessitate that they also reject good and bad. They may believe good and bad are relative, so what?

It seems to me that moral relativism is incompatible with being a morally serious person, at the very least.

Your argument is still just an “appeal to consequences” and has no bearing on addressing whether god exist or not nor does it provide evidence of any sort.

True, but I didn’t present it as evidence that god exists, just as an appeal to consequences as you say. I presented the existence of the conscience as evidence.

 

[Oreoracle]

Okay, seriously, the majority of the arguments here amount to "It is convenient for my psyche to believe God exists, therefore, God exists." Anyone who dares speak otherwise is attacked for not having this optimistic, illogical view. There is a difference between an ethic and a fact, people. As such, there is a difference between the world as it is and as it should be.

It seems to me that moral relativism is incompatible with being a morally serious person, at the very least.

Interestingly, believing in an objective morality is compatible with fallacious reasoning. See David Hume’s is-ought gap, or Moore’s naturalistic fallacy.

 

[tomarin]

Okay, seriously, the majority of the arguments here amount to "It is convenient for my psyche to believe God exists, therefore, God exists." Anyone who dares speak otherwise is attacked for not having this optimistic, illogical view. There is a difference between an ethic and a fact, people. As such, there is a difference between the world as it is and as it should be.

Well, I for one am very aware of that fact. It would be nice if there were life after death (provided it’s not eternal life in Hell of course); but that alone is not an argument for it.

But how does that observation refute the conclusion drawn from the existence of our moral sense?

Interestingly, believing in an objective morality is compatible with fallacious reasoning. See David Hume’s is-ought gap, or Moore’s naturalistic fallacy.

Now we’re getting somewhere. I know that Hume was an atheist, or agnostic and that he was a very clever man. Why did he think believing in objective morality was fallacious?

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, I for one am very aware of that fact. It would be nice if there were life after death (provided it’s not eternal life in Hell of course); but that alone is not an argument for it.

But how does that observation refute the conclusion drawn from the existence of our moral sense?

Moral sense can be explained by emotivism. In other words, “killing is wrong” is another way of saying “Boo! I dislike killing!” These emotions likely stem from biological characteristics. For example, I am born with a want for sex; the value is ingrained in my mind. If I don’t have sex, this situation can react with my value (a want to have sex) to produce the appropriate emotion. Morals are formed this way, from the way I see it.

Now we’re getting somewhere. I know that Hume was an atheist, or agnostic and that he was a very clever man. Why did he think believing in objective morality was fallacious?

We can’t logically use “good” in the same sense that we could use “round” to describe a ball, or “salty” to describe sea water. Instead, good and bad seem to be our emotional response in relation to an object, or anything concrete. Since emotion cannot be measured, as it is abstract, all ethics are considered subjective by Hume. I could ask a question, and, with your answers that will follow, you’ll see what I mean (actually, anyone could jump in and answer.

Here goes: Why should we value God’s word?

 

[davidv]

{snip}

Here goes: Why should we value God’s word?

Because I, like many others, value truth over falsehood.

 

[wcknight]

IF there is no God, then why bother ???

Why bother to live, struggle, die, do good etc etc ??? IF after your 80 or 90+ years of existence there is nothing, what use is it ? Whatever you did, accomplish, experience all comes to nothing. Your life has no meaning. To you, you become nothing. The world may or may not remember you BUT so what ?

You are gone, soon to be forgotten and even IF someone remembers you for awhile what good does that do you ???

God does NOT need us, we need Him to exist because He gives life meaning. And thank God, He IS all that He claims to be. It does not take a rocket scientist to prove His existence, all you have to do is search and you will find Him. Just ask His friends, the Saints and folks who know Him. Faith is accepting God for who He says He is. He speaks to those who seek Him out. He appears to His friends and His friends not only believe He exists they KNOW He exists.

 

[Oreoracle]

Because I, like many others, value truth over falsehood.

Good, now let’s continue. Why should we value truth over falsehood? Would you say the truth makes you happier by making achievements easier?

 

[davidv]

Good, now let’s continue. Why should we value truth over falsehood? Would you say the truth makes you happier by making achievements easier?

I will answer by way of a hypothetical.
I work in a large multi-national company. Suppose my supervisor comes to me tomorrow and says “I need you to modify your goals for this year to better align them with department objectives.” Now suppose he harbors some dislike for me, but this dislike has nothing to with my job performance or company ethics.

So, based on the discussion we have, we agree on a new set of objectives. Then I diligently begin working on these goals. Mid-year review time comes along and I get favorable feedback on my progress. Based on this I continue my work.

The end of the year arrives and my supervisor informs me that I have not achieved my goals and I am going to be fired. (The truth being that he lied to me about what my goals were.)

The end result of the falsehood is that I am without a job, a burden to society as I collect unemployment insurance and I didn’t further the legitimate objectives of the company.

I am happy because of the falsehood?

 

[Oreoracle]

I will answer by way of a hypothetical.
I work in a large multi-national company. Suppose my supervisor comes to me tomorrow and says “I need you to modify your goals for this year to better align them with department objectives.” Now suppose he harbors some dislike for me, but this dislike has nothing to with my job performance or company ethics.

So, based on the discussion we have, we agree on a new set of objectives. Then I diligently begin working on these goals. Mid-year review time comes along and I get favorable feedback on my progress. Based on this I continue my work.

The end of the year arrives and my supervisor informs me that I have not achieved my goals and I am going to be fired. (The truth being that he lied to me about what my goals were.)

The end result of the falsehood is that I am without a job, a burden to society as I collect unemployment insurance and I didn’t further the legitimate objectives of the company.

I am happy because of the falsehood?

I see, and the suffering was amplified because you would have been collecting unemployment, as you said. Would you say that this is the reason that honesty is considered a virtue–it leads to effective communication, which leads to productivity, which leads to happiness? After all, each only has meaning if the next is involved, am I right?

 

[davidv]

I see, and the suffering was amplified because you would have been collecting unemployment, as you said. Would you say that this is the reason that honesty is considered a virtue–it leads to effective communication, which leads to productivity, which leads to happiness?

That is one of the reasons. Another reason is that is pleases others. Another is that it leads to true happiness.

After all, each only has meaning if the next is involved, am I right?

No. Each of these has meaning independent of the others.

 

[Oreoracle]

That is one of the reasons. Another reason is that is pleases others. Another is that it leads to true happiness.

Would you say that the knowledge that you please others gives you pleasure?

No. Each of these has meaning independent of the others.

I myself am not so certain. I value productivity because it is what keeps me alive by providing shelter, food, etc. However, I only value life for the happiness I will attain during its course. Even if I said that my purpose in life is to serve others, I would only say so because helping others gives me pleasure/happiness.

 

[tomarin]

Moral sense can be explained by emotivism. In other words, “killing is wrong” is another way of saying “Boo! I dislike killing!” These emotions likely stem from biological characteristics.

I don’t see why it’s any more likely than a supernatural explanation. There isn’t any scientific evidence that morality resides in our biology, for example (not that that disproves it). I think reducing our moral instincts to biology seems to explain the phenomenon, but doesn’t really explain it at all.

We can’t logically use “good” in the same sense that we could use “round” to describe a ball, or “salty” to describe sea water. Instead, good and bad seem to be our emotional response in relation to an object, or anything concrete. Since emotion cannot be measured, as it is abstract, all ethics are considered subjective by Hume. I could ask a question, and, with your answers that will follow, you’ll see what I mean (actually, anyone could jump in and answer.

I think you might be setting me up for a “poisoning the well”-type situation here. It’s hard to separate morality from emotion; but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not independent of each other.

Here goes: Why should we value God’s word?

I value it because I want to be on the side of truth, goodness and beauty in this life.

 

[Oreoracle]

Tomarin, if you look at the discussion davidv and I are having, you’ll see where I’m going with this.

 

[tomarin]

Tomarin, if you look at the discussion davidv and I are having, you’ll see where I’m going with this.

I have been following it, or trying to – but I think you’re going to have to spell it out for me.

 

[Oreoracle]

I have been following it, or trying to – but I think you’re going to have to spell it out for me.

Keep in mind that I don’t mean to speak for David when I tell you this. We took the initial maxim–“I should abide by God’s word”–and I asked “why value God’s word?” He seemed to be telling me that he valued God because he valued truth. Again, I asked “why value truth?” He explained by giving me a hypothetical scenario in which falsehood caused suffering, and, had the truth been told, happiness would have followed instead. Admittedly, I have been pressing him, but it seems to me that truth is only valuable if it is used to cause happiness or reduce suffering. I also pointed out that I only feel that my life is valuable if I am experiencing or expecting to experience happiness. I’m sure that if someone were forced to respond honestly, they’d say the same, even if the only happiness they felt is the pleasure they get from helping others.

If I can prove hedonism in this way, it would seem that every ethical system is truly subjective, because the value of each thing lies only in its ability to increase one’s happiness, and happiness is not objectively valuable. It is an emotion that seeks to justify itself.

 

[tomarin]

Admittedly, I have been pressing him, but it seems to me that truth is only valuable if it is used to cause happiness or reduce suffering.

My admittedly emotional response to that is: that’s utilitarianism, and utilitarianism is immoral. But obviously saying such a thing would be putting the cart before the horse, since we haven’t established the objectivity of morality.