Why would somebody embrace the worst possible scenario?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ILoveYeshua said:
The situation I have in mind is the person who has analyzed a few religious traditions and has decided that a particular tradition merits faith. Because faith is put in a particular tradition, what that tradition teaches is taken to heart. That person’s life would be more comfortable in the realm of at least “victimless sins”
Click to expand...
It’s a situation I might have suggested. When faced with a number of options, one makes a personal decision that one is more correct than others and follows that path. So the tradition of the Catholic faith, before one becomes a Catholic, makes personal sense. As in: ‘I have made a personal decision that I agree with what they teach’.

You cannot claim that the Catholic faith teaches what is right without going through the same process as I did. Examining what they actually espouse and making a personal decision on whether you agree with it ot not.

Nobody becomes a Catholic if they disagree with what they teach. It would be as if you were a socialist and joined the Republicans.
 
Why? How does the existence of God make something right? If God decides to deem some things right and some things wrong, that’s just a subjective arbitrary decision. It’s not right, it’s just one being’s rules. If there is a reason behind why God decides that some things are right and some things are wrong, then those reasons are what make things right and some things wrong. I can believe the reasons exist without believing that God exists.

God is irrelevant to the issue of what (if anything) makes some thing moral or immoral. At best, you can only argue that God alone is the only one who knows those reasons for sure.

I think an absolute right and wrong are either unknowable or nonexistent, so I only concern myself with things that are discernable: loyalty, kindness, equality, honesty, integrity, mutually benefit , reciprocity. I can’t say for certain that these things are right, but their value to people is undeniable. It stands to reason that things with proven value are more valuable than things with no proven value and no evidence to back them up.
 
Last edited:
TheCuriousCat said:
Why? How does the existence of God make something right? If God decides to deem some things right and some things wrong, that’s just a subjective arbitrary decision.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what God you are talking about, but God doesn’t arbitrarily deem things right or wrong. Gods’s nature, his very being, is what determines something to be right or wrong.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
It stands to reason that things with proven value are more valuable than things with no proven value and no evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...
That’s your pragmatic point of view, but its ultimately and objectively meaningless.
 
So there is an independent standard of what is right and wrong that makes God right? If so, then it is that standard, not God, that makes things right or wrong.

If there isn’t an independent standard, then the statement “God is good” is meaningless, you are just saying, “God is God”, and since it is impossible for people to be God, then the concept of people being good becomes meaningless.

Isn’t funny how things can sound like they make sense while they are really just meaningless?
 
Uhm, it is an objective fact. Only things that have proven value can be known to be valuable. There is no way for that to be wrong. It is a tautology, it is logically true in and of itself.

Anything I value, is by definition valuable. Anything that anyone values is by definition valuable. Anything that benefits anyone, is by definition, beneficial. Things that benefit more people to a larger degree are, by definition, more beneficial than things that benefit fewer people to a lesser degree.

These things are objectively true. It might not be meaningful to you, but it is objectively meaningful.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
So there is an independent standard of what is right and wrong that makes God right? If so, then it is that standard, not God, that makes things right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Did i say there is an independent standard of right or wrong distinct from God?
 
TheCuriousCat said:
Anything I value, is by definition valuable.
Click to expand...
It has subjective value to you based on the physical impulses that drive you. Objectively speaking it has no value or meaning. It has no more meaning than cockroaches looking for food. Any meaning you find in life is in your head; not objective reality.

It seems to me that you want to always have a cake and you want to eat it at the same time, but that’s delusional.
 
Last edited:
TheCuriousCat said:
These things are objectively true. It might not be meaningful to you, but it is objectively meaningful.
Click to expand...
They are not objectively meaningful. It has a utility value to you. because that’s what you happen to value. You don’t suddenly get an objective value or meaning out of that just because you value it or find it meaningful. .Its just physical activity, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
If you look back at my first post, you will see that I said morality either does not exist or is unknowable. You are just agreeing with me. If you want to argue, you have to choose an argument that is different from mine.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
If you look back at my first post, you will see that I said morality either does not exist or is unknowable. You are just agreeing with me. If you want to argue, you have to choose an argument that is different from mine.
Click to expand...
I never made that argument. I said it is God’s nature that determines moral truth, a thing is true because of God’s nature, not some arbitrary statement. God’s nature is the objective standard.

Where do i agree with you?

And in any case knowledge of good and evil is besides the point since it is not the purpose of this thread to prove the existence of a knowable objective standard of morality. What is absolutely certain is that without an objective standard of moral truth there is no moral truth and there cannot be if only physical activity exists. Human activity is meaningless and pointless just like the rest of the universe. It’s delusional to say otherwise if you are a proponent of metaphysical naturalism.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, there is no point in having this conversation. Something can’t be meaningful and not meaningful. It’s the law of non-contradiction. If we aren’t going to follow the most fundamental laws of logic then the conversation becomes ridiculous. It’s also clear to me that you are either not reading or not understanding my points, and again that makes it a ridiculous conversation. You may as well not bother talking about it and just declare yourself right because you think you are.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
I’m sorry, there is no point in having this conversation. Something can’t be meaningful and not meaningful. It’s the law of non-contradiction. If we aren’t going to follow the most fundamental laws of logic then the conversation becomes ridiculous. It’s also clear to me that you are either not reading or not understanding my points, and again that makes it a ridiculous conversation. You may as well not bother talking about it and just declare yourself right because you think you are.
Click to expand...
If only physical things exist, there is no objective meaning or value, because there are only physical things in existence. If there is a contradiction in that, then the idea that only physical reality exists is the contradiction. There is no error in what i am saying.

It is you who is not reading what i am saying or maybe you are just not capable of grasping the concepts i am dealing with. Thanks for your participation.
 
Last edited:
You say I am not understanding you, and I say that you aren’t understanding me. Well, good news is that we can put that to the test.

Here is what I think your point is (fairly simplified):
  1. If there is no God, human beings are nothing but a collection of physical processes.
  2. Values and morality can not be generated by physical processes.
  3. For these things to exist, their source must be a metaphysical entity.
  4. God is the source of morality.
Did I get it right?

Now, you tell me what point I was making, and I will tell you if you got it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top