Does God exist?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
I said somebody came up with astrology, right after that I gave a list of things God was involved in, they all had to do with astronomy.
This is a ridiculous arguement that will probably cause a lot of fights between all these people in the thread. I am not reading the whole thing to find out either.
But for arguments sake.
God is in my opinion, a hope or a faith that any person can have in any way. God is some one i'm sure almost everyone has tried to talk to. even if you don't beleive in god, it's like a myth so you're still talking about him.
But for arguments sake.
God is in my opinion, a hope or a faith that any person can have in any way. God is some one i'm sure almost everyone has tried to talk to. even if you don't beleive in god, it's like a myth so you're still talking about him.
There have been several times, when a posting has caught my eye and I felt compelled to make this post. However, I wanted to cover science, mostly in my debate with Dex, before I got to philosophy.
Well, after my posting on the reasons behind atheism, it became apparent to me when talloola thought I was implying that atheists have a lower sense of morals, that I MUST make this argument now.
I am going to start this post with a quote from someone on this forum. Now, I'm still new here, and I like all you guys, but I believe that this person is the most sincere, level headed person among us. And therefore we can consider his statement to be true blue. REAL HONESTY. That person is my friend Ron in Regina.
Quoting Ron on November 14th.
I am going to make the argument that morality is objective. NOT RELATIVE. Now, Scott and I got into this debate waaaay back in the day, but I want to go deeper. I'm not just going to post on this tonite, I have a few points that I would like to present. So please, follow this argument to the end. I won't convince most, but if your HONEST with yourself, I believe you will at least see SOME VALIDITY to my argument.
First of all, its not only atheists, people who identify themselves as agnostic will also argue the following claims. I haven't come across a religeous person who has, but its a big world. Anywayz, relativists usually make two primary truth claims:
1) there is no absolute truth, and
2) there are no absolute moral values.
I think I made a pretty straightforward case that the first statement is nonsense in my debate with SJP, as some of you may have seen. If there really is no absolute truth, then the absolute claim that “there is no absolute truth” can’t be true. You can see that this statement is irrational because it affirms exactly what he’s trying to deny. Even Joseph Fletcher, the father of modern situation ethics, fell into this trap. In his book Situation Ethics, Fletcher insisted that “the situationist avoids words like ‘never’ and ‘perfect’ and ‘always’. Of course, this is tantamount to claiming that “One should never say never,” or “We should always avoid using the word always.” But those very statements do not avoid what they say - we must avoid. People who make relative claims are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes.
Like absolute truth, absolute values are also undeniable. While the claim “There are no absolute values” is not self-defeating, the existence of absolute values is practically undeniable. For the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Furthermore, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
I have lots of examples of this, but this was first illusrated to me in a debate with a coworker. After I suggested there are such things as objective moral values to which we all have an obligation, knucklehead protested loudly:
“There are no real values. It’s all a matter of taste or opinion!”
"Who wants to hear your opinion?!” is what I wanted to say. Of course, if I had been so rude and discourteous, he would have rightly complained that I had violated his right to his opinion and his right to express it. To which I could have replied:
“You have no such right—you just told me such rights don’t exist!” His complaint would have proved that he actually did believe in a real absolute value - he valued his right to say that there are no absolute values.
In other words, even those who deny all values nevertheless value their right to make that denial.
AND THEREIN LIES THE INCONSITENCY.
MORAL VALUES ARE PRACTICALLY UNDENIEABLE.
I'm going to stop it right there, there's other threads I want to read, plus work tommorow. I'll probably continue tommorow.
Well, after my posting on the reasons behind atheism, it became apparent to me when talloola thought I was implying that atheists have a lower sense of morals, that I MUST make this argument now.
I am going to start this post with a quote from someone on this forum. Now, I'm still new here, and I like all you guys, but I believe that this person is the most sincere, level headed person among us. And therefore we can consider his statement to be true blue. REAL HONESTY. That person is my friend Ron in Regina.
Quoting Ron on November 14th.
Did you catch that? A deep sense of right and wrong.
I am going to make the argument that morality is objective. NOT RELATIVE. Now, Scott and I got into this debate waaaay back in the day, but I want to go deeper. I'm not just going to post on this tonite, I have a few points that I would like to present. So please, follow this argument to the end. I won't convince most, but if your HONEST with yourself, I believe you will at least see SOME VALIDITY to my argument.
First of all, its not only atheists, people who identify themselves as agnostic will also argue the following claims. I haven't come across a religeous person who has, but its a big world. Anywayz, relativists usually make two primary truth claims:
1) there is no absolute truth, and
2) there are no absolute moral values.
I think I made a pretty straightforward case that the first statement is nonsense in my debate with SJP, as some of you may have seen. If there really is no absolute truth, then the absolute claim that “there is no absolute truth” can’t be true. You can see that this statement is irrational because it affirms exactly what he’s trying to deny. Even Joseph Fletcher, the father of modern situation ethics, fell into this trap. In his book Situation Ethics, Fletcher insisted that “the situationist avoids words like ‘never’ and ‘perfect’ and ‘always’. Of course, this is tantamount to claiming that “One should never say never,” or “We should always avoid using the word always.” But those very statements do not avoid what they say - we must avoid. People who make relative claims are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes.
Like absolute truth, absolute values are also undeniable. While the claim “There are no absolute values” is not self-defeating, the existence of absolute values is practically undeniable. For the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Furthermore, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
I have lots of examples of this, but this was first illusrated to me in a debate with a coworker. After I suggested there are such things as objective moral values to which we all have an obligation, knucklehead protested loudly:
“There are no real values. It’s all a matter of taste or opinion!”
"Who wants to hear your opinion?!” is what I wanted to say. Of course, if I had been so rude and discourteous, he would have rightly complained that I had violated his right to his opinion and his right to express it. To which I could have replied:
“You have no such right—you just told me such rights don’t exist!” His complaint would have proved that he actually did believe in a real absolute value - he valued his right to say that there are no absolute values.
In other words, even those who deny all values nevertheless value their right to make that denial.
AND THEREIN LIES THE INCONSITENCY.
MORAL VALUES ARE PRACTICALLY UNDENIEABLE.
I'm going to stop it right there, there's other threads I want to read, plus work tommorow. I'll probably continue tommorow.
Last edited:
Pick your own god from among various makes and models...
Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist!
Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods. Mythology with a twist!
alleywayz,
I don't think I have read a better example of cyclical thinking in all my life. If you continue down this path of thought, you will talk yourself out of existence. Actually, you might talk us all out of existence. Please cease and desist. I'm afraid I will end up in the same place as you and will have to debate you in circles for eternity.
I don't think I have read a better example of cyclical thinking in all my life. If you continue down this path of thought, you will talk yourself out of existence. Actually, you might talk us all out of existence. Please cease and desist. I'm afraid I will end up in the same place as you and will have to debate you in circles for eternity.
Vanni Fucci,
I have visited that site before. I like fertility gods and goddesses the most. They advocate having fun doing my very favourite thing... Yahoo!
I have visited that site before. I like fertility gods and goddesses the most. They advocate having fun doing my very favourite thing... Yahoo!
How about instead of silly assertions you give me some reasons for your thinking? Like how I do when debating the bigger topix. Once again, your viewpoint has to declare my logic flawed in order to appear make its own view seem intelligent. I don't see you offering any evidence for the non-existence of god, or relative morality.
Not a chance in hell. Didn't I say "follow my argument to the end"?
Continuing with my argument for objective morality, I'm going to show you one of the obvious manifestations of an absolute moral standard. And its our REACTIONS. Our reactions to how we get mistreated. We've all experienced it when someone mistreats us. Think how morally outraged you got. You must certainly valued your ABSOLUTE rights, didn't you? Morality didn't seem so relative then, did it?
Here's the exact same story I told Scott in a previous debate, it serves as a great example:
When I was studying philosophy, we were covering a section on ethics. We were all assigned a term paper on any ethical topic of our choice. The requirements were to properly backup our thesis with reasons and documentation. This guy in my class, who I knew and was good friends with, handed a eloquently written paper on the topic of moral relativism. He argued, "All morals are relative; there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness; it's all a matter of opinion; you like chocolate, I like vanilla," and so forth.
His paper provided both his reasons and his documentation. It was the right length, on time, and stylishly presented in handsome blue folder. After the prof read the entire paper, he wrote on the front cover, "F!--I don't like blue folders!" When knucklehead got his paper back he was OUTRAGED! He stormed in the prof's office and protested,"'F! --I don't like blue folders! 'That's not fair! That's not right! It's not just! You didn't grade the paper based on it's merits!"
"Hold on sec! Wasn't your paper the one that said there is no such thing as fairness, rightness, and justice?"
"Yes"
"Then what's this you say about me not being fair and right? Didn't your paper argue that it's all just a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?"
"Yes, that's my view."
"Fine, then, I don't like blue. You get a F!"
The light bulb totally went on in this guy's head. He realized that he did believe in SOME absolute morals. He at least believed in justice. After all, he was charging the prof with injustice, for giving him an F just for having a blue folder. That simple fact defeated his case for relativism.
Knucklehead realized that there IS an objective standard of rightness by how he reacted to the prof's treatment of him.
I may not think stealing is wrong when I steal from you. But watch how MORALLY OUTRAGED I get if you steal from me.
Next, I got another really good example of a manifestation of absolute morals. Its going to help us open up the question of human rights. What are human rights, and are they actually inalienable?
Here's the exact same story I told Scott in a previous debate, it serves as a great example:
When I was studying philosophy, we were covering a section on ethics. We were all assigned a term paper on any ethical topic of our choice. The requirements were to properly backup our thesis with reasons and documentation. This guy in my class, who I knew and was good friends with, handed a eloquently written paper on the topic of moral relativism. He argued, "All morals are relative; there is no absolute standard of justice or rightness; it's all a matter of opinion; you like chocolate, I like vanilla," and so forth.
His paper provided both his reasons and his documentation. It was the right length, on time, and stylishly presented in handsome blue folder. After the prof read the entire paper, he wrote on the front cover, "F!--I don't like blue folders!" When knucklehead got his paper back he was OUTRAGED! He stormed in the prof's office and protested,"'F! --I don't like blue folders! 'That's not fair! That's not right! It's not just! You didn't grade the paper based on it's merits!"
"Hold on sec! Wasn't your paper the one that said there is no such thing as fairness, rightness, and justice?"
"Yes"
"Then what's this you say about me not being fair and right? Didn't your paper argue that it's all just a matter of taste? You like chocolate, I like vanilla?"
"Yes, that's my view."
"Fine, then, I don't like blue. You get a F!"
The light bulb totally went on in this guy's head. He realized that he did believe in SOME absolute morals. He at least believed in justice. After all, he was charging the prof with injustice, for giving him an F just for having a blue folder. That simple fact defeated his case for relativism.
Knucklehead realized that there IS an objective standard of rightness by how he reacted to the prof's treatment of him.
I may not think stealing is wrong when I steal from you. But watch how MORALLY OUTRAGED I get if you steal from me.
Next, I got another really good example of a manifestation of absolute morals. Its going to help us open up the question of human rights. What are human rights, and are they actually inalienable?
Last edited:
Morals are relevant to the holder. In our society, pedophilia is a moral outrage, but in some societies, pedophilia (by our definition) is an accepted social norm. Some people think that eating meat is barbaric while others enjoy a good steak.
In the end, morals, right or wrong, good or bad are a matter of judgment. I may think something is wrong, but do I have a right to judge another? No. That is god's job. It says so right in your "good book"... Judge not lest ye be judged. Good advice!
In the end, morals, right or wrong, good or bad are a matter of judgment. I may think something is wrong, but do I have a right to judge another? No. That is god's job. It says so right in your "good book"... Judge not lest ye be judged. Good advice!
Quote: Please cease and desist.
Not a chance in hell. Didn't I say "follow my argument to the end"?
alleyway,
I was being facetious. I would never tell someone to shut up. I enjoy debate as well as anyone. That said, I do think that you line of thinking will, in the end, disprove existence. Everything we say is a Catch 22 - damned if you do, damned if you don't. At least that is what I was getting from your argument, but then I have been known to be wrong on rare occasions.
Your confusing VALUE with BEHAVIOR. What IS with what OUGHT to be. What people do is subject to change, what they ought to do doesn't. Lower age of consent laws and values in other countries don't dictate what's right and wrong. I seriously doubt such actions are seen in any positive light, in any country, anywhere.
Look at the subject of murder. Murder is far more accepted in islamic fanatical cirlces than pedophilia any day. Murder of infidels is completely justified among extremists. Even christian fanatics who attempt or succeed in murdering abortion doctors. The idea of murder is pretty justifiable to them.
Does it make murder relative?
Not a chance. WE ALL know murder is wrong.
No right to judge others? Again your confused. The lesson from that particular parable isn't NEVER judge. Its don't judge, UNLESS your life is in order, and your willing to be judged yourself. If you feel your in the right Cliffy, judge away.
Last edited:
Well, alright. :smile:;-) I hear all the time that I'm illogical(or have flawed logic), unreasonable, irrational, and ignorant. A thread is in the works in my defense, but in the mean time, I was surprised to see cease and desist. I'm glad you were joking. Please accept my friends request. :smile:
That's good. :smile:
We'll see about that! ;-)
Not really. My argument is that there is a moral code written on our hearts. A moral compass guiding people as S.F. so eloquently put it. A long time ago, like many atheists and agnostics, I believed that all the evil in the world was evidence for the non-existence of god.
Then I stopped to ask my self this question: When I recognize evil in the world, WHAT is the standard that I'm comparing it to?
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.;-)
I think that prof is ignorant and arrogant, as a lot of them are in my experience. Your friend may have written a cogent, reasoned argument about moral relativism, which can certainly be done, and the prof's response, as you described it, was capricious and unreasoned. It does not make the case for moral absolutes.
Continuing with my argument for absolute morals, I thought I would show another pretty awesome example of a manifestation.
Last non-rebuttal post, I mentioned human rights. Notice how every single person on this forum values there ABSOLUTE right to free speech? When we say or claim that our rights as humans are inalienable, we are in fact appealing to the moral objectivity written on all our hearts. Objective morality is the basis for human rights. When you claim that morality is relative, you are in fact denying the inalienability of your absolute right to say so.
Again my example for tonite is pretty awesome. Its the USA(luv'em-or-hate'em;-)) declaration of independence. The USA was established by the belief in moral objectivity and true blue god-given rights.
Jefferson and the other founding fathers recognized that there was a higher authority--the “Creator”--to whom they could appeal to establish objective moral grounds for their independence. Had they begun the declaration with, “We hold these opinions as our own . . .” (rather than “self-evident” “truths”), they wouldn’t have expressed an objective moral justification for their declaration of independence. It simply would have been their opinion against that of King George.
So the Founders appealed to the “Creator” because they believed his moral law was the ultimate standard of right and wrong that would JUSTIFY their cause. And their cause was to end the rule of King George in the american colonies. They were convinced that George’s rule needed to be ended because he was violating the basic human rights of the colonists.
In a sense, the founding fathers were in the same position as were the allied countries after WWII. When the nazi war criminals were brought to trial in Nuremburg, they were convicted of violating basic human rights as defined by the moral law (which is manifested in international law, another example). This is the law that all people inherently understand and to which all nations are subject. If there were no such international morality that transcended the laws of the secular german government, then the allies would have had no grounds to condemn the nazis. In other words, we couldn’t have said that the Nazis were ABSOLUTELY wrong unless we knew what was ABSOLUTELY right.
We do know they were absolutely wrong, therefore we must know what is absolutely right. Absolute values exist. These absolute values is the moral law written on our hearts.
Last non-rebuttal post, I mentioned human rights. Notice how every single person on this forum values there ABSOLUTE right to free speech? When we say or claim that our rights as humans are inalienable, we are in fact appealing to the moral objectivity written on all our hearts. Objective morality is the basis for human rights. When you claim that morality is relative, you are in fact denying the inalienability of your absolute right to say so.
Again my example for tonite is pretty awesome. Its the USA(luv'em-or-hate'em;-)) declaration of independence. The USA was established by the belief in moral objectivity and true blue god-given rights.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Notice the phrase, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” In other words, the founding fathers believed that human rights are god given. Therefore, they are universal and absolute, they are the rights of all people, in all places, at all times, regardless of their nationality or religion. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Jefferson and the other founding fathers recognized that there was a higher authority--the “Creator”--to whom they could appeal to establish objective moral grounds for their independence. Had they begun the declaration with, “We hold these opinions as our own . . .” (rather than “self-evident” “truths”), they wouldn’t have expressed an objective moral justification for their declaration of independence. It simply would have been their opinion against that of King George.
So the Founders appealed to the “Creator” because they believed his moral law was the ultimate standard of right and wrong that would JUSTIFY their cause. And their cause was to end the rule of King George in the american colonies. They were convinced that George’s rule needed to be ended because he was violating the basic human rights of the colonists.
In a sense, the founding fathers were in the same position as were the allied countries after WWII. When the nazi war criminals were brought to trial in Nuremburg, they were convicted of violating basic human rights as defined by the moral law (which is manifested in international law, another example). This is the law that all people inherently understand and to which all nations are subject. If there were no such international morality that transcended the laws of the secular german government, then the allies would have had no grounds to condemn the nazis. In other words, we couldn’t have said that the Nazis were ABSOLUTELY wrong unless we knew what was ABSOLUTELY right.
We do know they were absolutely wrong, therefore we must know what is absolutely right. Absolute values exist. These absolute values is the moral law written on our hearts.
Last edited: