Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

I still can't fathom how one can feel a genuine sense of meaning in their lives, if they know that very meaning it is self created.

Wouldn't God being the validator of 'meaning' accomplish much the same thing?

 

[BradCube]

Wouldn't God being the validator of 'meaning' accomplish much the same thing?

No, I don't believe so and I suppose this comes back to the Euthyphro dilemma. My answer to this is to propose that since God is the creator and reason for everything that has and ever will exist, what his character believes to be true, is in fact true. So it's not because he wills it to be that way and it's not that he obeys it because something else sets it as that way, but it is because his character is that way. There is simply nothing beyond God and it is because of this that his sense of meaning cannot be undermined by saying it is "self-created" or subject to the same flaws as our own creation of meaning.

 

[Mumma]

What a load of wank.

 

[Wearingmyrolex]

no truly open minded person can believe in god with absolute conviction

 

[Ennaybur]

No, I don't believe so and I suppose this comes back to the Euthyphro dilemma. My answer to this is to propose that since God is the creator and reason for everything that has and ever will exist, what his character believes to be true, is in fact true. So it's not because he wills it to be that way and it's not that he obeys it because something else sets it as that way, but it is because his character is that way. There is simply nothing beyond God and it is because of this that his sense of meaning cannot be undermined by saying it is "self-created" or subject to the same flaws as our own creation of meaning.

Can you please explain that further?

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

No, I don't believe so and I suppose this comes back to the Euthyphro dilemma. My answer to this is to propose that since God is the creator and reason for everything that has and ever will exist, what his character believes to be true, is in fact true. So it's not because he wills it to be that way and it's not that he obeys it because something else sets it as that way, but it is because his character is that way. There is simply nothing beyond God and it is because of this that his sense of meaning cannot be undermined by saying it is "self-created" or subject to the same flaws as our own creation of meaning.

Do you value a diamond? There is nothing which gives it intrinsic value, value is a human construct... Does me telling you that it's nothing more than a human construct make you value a diamond less? I'd put it to you that 'meaning' is as human a construct as 'value' and the fact that we create meaning doesn't really bother us in the same sense as that we 'created' the value of the diamond doesn't bother us.

edit; The problem I have with proposing God as getting around what you think is a problem with constructed meaning is that it assumes you will know the will/mind of God, which people clearly do not... So therefore it appears that the theist constructs their meaning with a part of that construction merely being that "I think God says this is right", that's no better than presenting your own meaning as an objective truth 'I think it is right'. It's still a construction, the only person who could claim their meaning is not a construction is God himself.

tl;dr: Having an arbiter of objective truth doesn't help us discover objective truth if we have no way of knowing, objectively, the arbiters' will.

 

[darkliight]

I suppose the point your trying to make is that if God did exist, why would He provide validation to meaning? I suppose my reply would be to suggest that you misunderstand the "greatness" (for lack of a better term) of God. If God, is the source of absolutely everything that has and ever will exist, then I think it fair enough that what he believes to be true, is in fact true.

EDIT: Just realised Kwayera that this means I will have to retract what I said before about the other factors of God being negotiable (for the above reason). I beg of your forgiveness

Hmm. You value gods definition of value. Why?

 

[Stevo.]

Because weak minded sheep need a shepherd to guide them.

 

[Ennaybur]

Was that post deleted on purpose or should I respond to it?

Thank god they were :\

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

Why is it always theists who post these insulting diatribes yet it's atheists that are always so 'narrow minded'?

edit: don't wanna just pick on one group of yas :b

 

[Captain Gh3y]

]I read this book a while ago an thought it was good it’s by a guy named Ray Comfort

the banana guy?

 

[KFunk]

No, I don't believe so and I suppose this comes back to the Euthyphro dilemma. My answer to this is to propose that since God is the creator and reason for everything that has and ever will exist, what his character believes to be true, is in fact true. So it's not because he wills it to be that way and it's not that he obeys it because something else sets it as that way, but it is because his character is that way. There is simply nothing beyond God and it is because of this that his sense of meaning cannot be undermined by saying it is "self-created" or subject to the same flaws as our own creation of meaning.

But then by your criterion of meaning - which posits a need for some external validating source - god's own existence is meaningless. If you can bypass this problem in the case of god and allow god to self-create meaning then why can't you do as much in the case of sentient beings like man?

 

[KFunk]

There is no place for creativity since anything apart from God would all be equally futile - or at least, if not futile, then simply equal.

I don't understand what you mean. Why does creativity disappear in the absence of god?

I still can't fathom how one can feel a genuine sense of meaning in their lives, if they know that very meaning it is self created. Essentially what you seem to be saying is that, even though there is no real meaning or validator of meaning, it's better to pretend to have meaning and try and enjoy the ride while we can. I'm sorry, but I could not allow myself to pretend that I have meaning my whole life when I in fact do not. Even with life's extensive complexities and "fun" I think I would find it quite hard to become caught up in it to the point that I forget about ever having meaning. I also fail to see why believing to have meaning, is better that believing that there is no meaning since neither are objective truths. Why should I even want to believe I have meaning, if there is no validator of meaning anyway?

I think it's a mistake to make it an issue of 'real' versus 'pseudo-' meaning. Instead I think its the difference between meaning derived from an external source and meaning derived from within, where I take meaning to be related to purpose, direction and living in a manner that might be deemed 'worthwhile'.

The case of externally derived meaning is well illustrated by Sartre who uses analogy of the artisan who creates a book or a paper-knife on the basis of some prior conception of the object - a conception which includes a purpose for the object in question. Therefore essence, i.e. meaning/purposes, precedes existence for such objects.

I take issue with theists who can't accept the idea that a being's existence could precede its essence because god is already postulated to do just this. Thus this idea is not, in and of itself, incoherent within a theistic context. I don't think that it is without sense to suppose that such a description could apply to humans. I am not advocating that real meaning is replaced with pseudo-meaning, but rather that you try to appreciate the possibility of self-created meaning.

 

[BradCube]

Can you please explain that further?

Sure,

Euthyphro's dilemma essentially asks "Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it’s good?" or in our case, "is meaning meaningful because God approves it, or does God approve it because it is meaningful?"

The answer I propose is that God is necessarily good because good is defined by his very nature. In this way it's not as though God "chooses" these values, and it's not as though good is forced to abide to a set of laws outside of himself. Does that make sense?

 

[Ennaybur]

Sure,

Euthyphro's dilemma essentially asks "Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it’s good?" or in our case, "is meaning meaningful because God approves it, or does God approve it because it is meaningful?"

The answer I propose is that God is necessarily good because good is defined by his very nature. In this way it's not as though God "chooses" these values, and it's not as though good is forced to abide to a set of laws outside of himself. Does that make sense?

Not really, sorry. It seems viciously circular. Or it would seem that could god then choose to make other things 'good', then what is good is arbitrary.

 

[BradCube]

Do you value a diamond? There is nothing which gives it intrinsic value, value is a human construct... Does me telling you that it's nothing more than a human construct make you value a diamond less? I'd put it to you that 'meaning' is as human a construct as 'value' and the fact that we create meaning doesn't really bother us in the same sense as that we 'created' the value of the diamond doesn't bother us.

I think you may be confusing the sort of value and worth we are talking about here. Sure, I agree with you that the value of diamonds are a human construct, but I was never arguing that it is God who provides the value in diamonds. The type of value we are talking about is one that goes a bit further than that - more to do with the value of life, worth of self, morality and existence. Now, sure, if it turns out that these are human constructs also, then we are in the same playing field as the value of diamonds - essentially a human created worth that really doesn't mean anything beyond ourselves.

edit; The problem I have with proposing God as getting around what you think is a problem with constructed meaning is that it assumes you will know the will/mind of God, which people clearly do not... So therefore it appears that the theist constructs their meaning with a part of that construction merely being that "I think God says this is right", that's no better than presenting your own meaning as an objective truth 'I think it is right'. It's still a construction, the only person who could claim their meaning is not a construction is God himself.

tl;dr: Having an arbiter of objective truth doesn't help us discover objective truth if we have no way of knowing, objectively, the arbiters' will.

In my mind, I would far rather try and learn what is truly meaningful and right then create my own sense of "right" knowing that it really only applies to me. I don't see the theist trying to find out what is right on the same level as a person creating their own sense of "right" at all.

 

[BradCube]

Not really, sorry. It seems viciously circular. Or it would seem that could god then choose to make other things 'good', then what is good is arbitrary.

No not all. God cannot choose to decide what is good because good is defined by his nature. It is not a decision to say okay "murder is wrong", "forgiveness is good/right". If it were then God could just as have easily said "murder is good", "forgiveness is wrong" etc. Rather it is because his nature is good, that what is good is based upon him. I suppose we could say that, if God were any different then good may be different too - but this supposes that God could could be any different when in fact there is no possible way he could be anything other than what he is.

 

[BoilinOatRunner]

I think you may be confusing the sort of value and worth we are talking about here. Sure, I agree with you that the value of diamonds are a human construct, but I was never arguing that it is God who provides the value in diamonds. The type of value we are talking about is one that goes a bit further than that - more to do with the value of life, worth of self, morality and existence. Now, sure, if it turns out that these are human constructs also, then we are in the same playing field as the value of diamonds - essentially a human created worth that really doesn't mean anything beyond ourselves.

If the value of a diamond can be a human construct why can't the value of a life, why can't our meaning? It works just as well, in that even though a diamond's worth is a human construct you won't throw one away... neither would you throw away a life.

In my mind, I would far rather try and learn what is truly meaningful and right then create my own sense of "right" knowing that it really only applies to me. I don't see the theist trying to find out what is right on the same level as a person creating their own sense of "right" at all.

You still create your "own sense of right" even if you do try (in a futile attempt I might add) to learn what is truly meaningful and right... I don't think it really matters what you're setting out to do if in the end you're left with the same result anyway.

People constructing their meaning while attempting to try and learn what is 'truly meaningful' will end up just constructing their own meaning from observations etc that they have no way of knowing are in any way a sign of the truth, in fact they end up in an infinite regress when they attempt to do this (by what method did you discern this meaning, their method will need to be backed up etc etc)... People constructing a meaning for themselves will probably look around the world, make observations and think about what's right although it's some concept outside of themselves also.

 

[Kwayera]

No not all. God cannot choose to decide what is good because good is defined by his nature. It is not a decision to say okay "murder is wrong", "forgiveness is good/right". If it were then God could just as have easily said "murder is good", "forgiveness is wrong" etc. Rather it is because his nature is good, that what is good is based upon him. I suppose we could say that, if God were any different then good may be different too - but this supposes that God could could be any different when in fact there is no possible way he could be anything other than what he is.

How do you know? By what arrogance do you presume to know?

And "because he HAS to be" is not an appropriate answer.



Emphasis mine.

 

[Wearingmyrolex]

How do you know? By what arrogance do you presume to know?

And "because he HAS to be" is not an appropriate answer.



Emphasis mine.

the old testament, have you read it?

gods good nature is clearly defined by his gentle advocation of slavery, murder and rape. His absolute righteousness is an integral part of his very nature. Acts this good cannot be determined to be so, they just are.