Does God Exist? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
Hi Guys, just came across this thread and thought it looked interesting, so here's some of my views on the topic.
Can you honestly be completely confident in saying that this whole hugely complex and amazingly precise universe is just an 'accident' with no purpose as to why it exists and no direction towards which it is heading? "When we hear the sound of an unexpected explosion, we instinctively ask what caused it. Why not ask the same question when faced with the biggest explosion of all?" (John Blanchard)
I am all for science telling us how the universe works and how it started and am amazed by the minds who worked out such complex ideas, but science doesn't tell us WHY the universe even bothers to exist in the first place.
Science cannot explain how the human mind exists and functions as it does. Humans have huge capacities for love, friendship, reason, logic. We have a conscience, an innate sense of what is right and wrong, of justice, we have a feeling of community with our fellow human beings. How can these qualities been a result of a "biological accident?"
If there is no God, why do we feel that we have to treat our fellow humans with at least some dignity and respect? If we say that there is no God and so no reason why the universe exists and no goal towards which it is moving, then we should be behaving as if there is absolutely no rational or moral order. We would have no concerns about massacres or genocides or rapes or the destruction of forests. Nobody is qualified to call anything morally good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust unless there is a transcendent, universal and unchanging standard. Something that is the source of absolute justice and absolute love.
Throughout history mankind has had a sense that there is something bigger than themselves, they have searched for an actual meaning to life and for their own place in the universe. Also, you can ask why has faith in God been impossible to destroy? In communist countries for decades Christians had been deprived of their jobs, freedom and lives, but they have continued to believe and even grow stronger despite this and would not renounce their faith. Would people die for something they knew was a lie or something they were just blindly convincing themselves of for the sake of something to hang on to?
Well that's my input
Each individual is accountable for themselves. There's no point sitting on the fence, its either the truth or not. And the awesome thing is, that God has given us minds capable of such intelligence and reasoning that we can make our own choice, a conscious decision is needed, it is not just a blind hanging on in the dark.
Good luck everyone still going with the HSC!
Oops sorry this turned out to be quite long!
Can you honestly be completely confident in saying that this whole hugely complex and amazingly precise universe is just an 'accident' with no purpose as to why it exists and no direction towards which it is heading? "When we hear the sound of an unexpected explosion, we instinctively ask what caused it. Why not ask the same question when faced with the biggest explosion of all?" (John Blanchard)
I am all for science telling us how the universe works and how it started and am amazed by the minds who worked out such complex ideas, but science doesn't tell us WHY the universe even bothers to exist in the first place.
Science cannot explain how the human mind exists and functions as it does. Humans have huge capacities for love, friendship, reason, logic. We have a conscience, an innate sense of what is right and wrong, of justice, we have a feeling of community with our fellow human beings. How can these qualities been a result of a "biological accident?"
If there is no God, why do we feel that we have to treat our fellow humans with at least some dignity and respect? If we say that there is no God and so no reason why the universe exists and no goal towards which it is moving, then we should be behaving as if there is absolutely no rational or moral order. We would have no concerns about massacres or genocides or rapes or the destruction of forests. Nobody is qualified to call anything morally good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust unless there is a transcendent, universal and unchanging standard. Something that is the source of absolute justice and absolute love.
Throughout history mankind has had a sense that there is something bigger than themselves, they have searched for an actual meaning to life and for their own place in the universe. Also, you can ask why has faith in God been impossible to destroy? In communist countries for decades Christians had been deprived of their jobs, freedom and lives, but they have continued to believe and even grow stronger despite this and would not renounce their faith. Would people die for something they knew was a lie or something they were just blindly convincing themselves of for the sake of something to hang on to?
Well that's my input
Each individual is accountable for themselves. There's no point sitting on the fence, its either the truth or not. And the awesome thing is, that God has given us minds capable of such intelligence and reasoning that we can make our own choice, a conscious decision is needed, it is not just a blind hanging on in the dark.Good luck everyone still going with the HSC!
Oops sorry this turned out to be quite long!
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Alrite, one point at a time --
Refuting the first cause argument
Claim:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a First Cause, which must have been a creator God.
Response:
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe which allow a universe without a first cause.
2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" doesn't even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God doesn't need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
------------------------------------
Refuting the lack of purpose argument
Claim:
If man arose by chance, life would have no purpose or meaning.
Response:
1. Purpose can come from anyone. The same object can have different purposes to different people or to the same person at different times. If you, or anyone or anything else, want to do something with your life, then your life has purpose. Nothing else is relevant.
2. Purpose is not determined by origins. Things can have purpose even if their origin is due to chance. The North Star, for example, came to its position by chance, but people still find a purpose for it.
3. Like most people, virtually all creationists already acknowledge that people arise by chance. In the process of sexual recombination, it is chance which determines which genes come from each parent and thus determines the genetics which make us who we are.
4. The theory of evolution most emphatically does not say that humans arose purely by chance.
------------------------------------
Refuting the human emotion argument
Claim:
Evolution doesn't explain human personality, emotions, and the human mind in general, which make man distinct from animals.
Response:
1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.
2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.
------------------------------------
Refuting the human morality arguments
Evolution cannot explain moral behavior, especially altruism (evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefitting themselves and their offspring).
Response:
1. The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.
Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly [Nowak et al. 2000]. The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups [Sigmund et al. 2002]. Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups [Hauert et al. 2002].
Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior towards close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver's genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person [Wedekind and Milinski 2000]. In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation [Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002].
Finally, evolution does not require that all traits must be adaptive 100% of the time. The altruism which benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.
2. This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation doesn't mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.
------------------------------------
Refuting the stupid arguments
2. You have made an appeal to majority (a lot of people believe it, therefore it is right) and tradition (it has been around for a long time, therefore it is right), two major fallacies. Example 1 (majority): a huge number of people believe the Earth was flat, therefore it is flat. Example 2 (tradition): We have used slaves for hundreds of years, so it is okay to keep doing so.
[I am not the author of any of the "claim" and "response" refutations. I'll deal with the God and morality thing seperately.]
Refuting the first cause argument
Vezzellda said:
Claim:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a First Cause, which must have been a creator God.
Response:
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe which allow a universe without a first cause.
2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" doesn't even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God doesn't need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
------------------------------------
Refuting the lack of purpose argument
Vezzellda said:
Claim:
If man arose by chance, life would have no purpose or meaning.
Response:
1. Purpose can come from anyone. The same object can have different purposes to different people or to the same person at different times. If you, or anyone or anything else, want to do something with your life, then your life has purpose. Nothing else is relevant.
2. Purpose is not determined by origins. Things can have purpose even if their origin is due to chance. The North Star, for example, came to its position by chance, but people still find a purpose for it.
3. Like most people, virtually all creationists already acknowledge that people arise by chance. In the process of sexual recombination, it is chance which determines which genes come from each parent and thus determines the genetics which make us who we are.
4. The theory of evolution most emphatically does not say that humans arose purely by chance.
------------------------------------
Refuting the human emotion argument
Vezzellda said:
Claim:
Evolution doesn't explain human personality, emotions, and the human mind in general, which make man distinct from animals.
Response:
1. Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions, personality, and mind may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us. And people without personality tend not to get laid.
2. People who have had pets know that cats, dogs, even birds also exhibit emotions and personality.
------------------------------------
Refuting the human morality arguments
Claim:Vezzellda said:
Evolution cannot explain moral behavior, especially altruism (evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefitting themselves and their offspring).
Response:
1. The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.
Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly [Nowak et al. 2000]. The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups [Sigmund et al. 2002]. Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups [Hauert et al. 2002].
Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior towards close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver's genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person [Wedekind and Milinski 2000]. In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation [Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002].
Finally, evolution does not require that all traits must be adaptive 100% of the time. The altruism which benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.
2. This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation doesn't mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.
------------------------------------
Refuting the stupid arguments
A 'sense,' while interesting, is not a reason. Not only does it not show anything, but I would hardly say it is part of every individual. Moreover even if it were, having a feeling for purpose is valuable in determining one's own purpose. It does not indicate that we are looking for the purpose that was "given to us," rather it may be that we are looking for a purpose of our own choosing.Vezzellda said:
1. That is a loaded question. These people don't obviously believe they are "blindly convincing themselves of for the sake of something to hang on to." They truly believe it. But that doesn't make their beliefs right! This is a ridiculous position to take. It's like saying that if I was willing to die for something, it must be right.Vezzellda said:
2. You have made an appeal to majority (a lot of people believe it, therefore it is right) and tradition (it has been around for a long time, therefore it is right), two major fallacies. Example 1 (majority): a huge number of people believe the Earth was flat, therefore it is flat. Example 2 (tradition): We have used slaves for hundreds of years, so it is okay to keep doing so.
[I am not the author of any of the "claim" and "response" refutations. I'll deal with the God and morality thing seperately.]
ur_inner_child
.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,084
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
Good work moonlight, that's a lot of typing.
*slowly reads it*
*slowly reads it*
nick1048
Mè çHöP ŸèW
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,613
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Sophie777 said:
hmmmmmm... serious or comical thread.
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Why morality is independant of God
Do you know how many theories of morality there are? What you just said is that your theory of morality is correct and that no-one else's is. In ethics however, the theory you are advocating is one of the worst theories ever. It is highly dodgey and must be maimed:
Refuting the Divine Command Theory
Your claim (The Divine Command Theory)
The basic idea: God is both the source of moral truths, and (via the bible, church authorities, reason and prayer) the source of our access to the moral truths. God created the world and the moral values and moral laws along with it. What God commands/desires is good and right; and what God forbids/does not desire is wrong or bad.
"X is good/right" means "X is commanded by God" and "X is bad/wrong" means "X is forbidden by God".
[By God of course we mean the all good, all knowing, all powerful creator of the world. However this would make the definition of "good" in terms of God's commands circular. We would be defining good in terms of God and then defining God in terms of "good". So we'll define 'God' here as the all knowing, all powerful creator of the world.]
The good side of this is it is objective - human behaviour must conform to a higher moral law. Unforuntately, it is severely flawed.
Initial Problems
1. It presupposes the existence of God. This is obviously a MAJOR problem.
2. Divine Command Theory is tautological nonsense. What could it mean to say that God's commands are good? If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God," then "God's commands are good" would mean only "God’s commands are commanded by God" - which is a useless truism.
----
Is God the source or cause of moral values, or could there be morality without God?
The most important part is that God is indepedant of morality. Whether you're religious or not.
Assuming God exists, ask yourself this question:
Is a good thing good because God commands it,
or does God command it because it is good?
There are 2 answers.
The first:
God's commanding it is what causes it to be good. God is the good causer.
God created everything, therefore God must have created morality. Before God commanded anything, nothing was good; and before God forbade anything, nothing was bad.
What's wrong with this?
God's commands now look arbitrary. What reason did God have for commanding one thing, rather than another? What if God had commanded us to torture babies? In such a case that would mean torturing babies is good.
I'm sure you'll agree that such a proposition would be absurd. So we can't say that "good," by definition, is what the creator desires.
You might reply by saying that God, because he is all good, would never have commanded us to do these things. But this leaves us with circular reasoning (saying that the good things are all and only those things that an all good creator loves).
But consider this. If we say that the commands of a good creator makes things good, wouldn't the good act be good regardless of whether the creator commanded it? If so, what is good is determined independently of what the creator desires --
The second way of answer the quesiton
God is not the good causer, but the good detector. God commands us to act in certain ways because those acts are already and independently good, prior to god's commands. God forbids us from acting in certain ways (e.g. torturing babies) because those acts are wrong.
"God's commands are good" now means that he commands what he sees to be best (having perfect wisdom).
But morality is now indepedant of God! This means that there can be morality WITHOUT God! More importantly, God does not provide the objective source for morality, since rightness and wrongness are determined independently of God's commands.
Okay buddy you just stepped over the lineVezzellda said:
Do you know how many theories of morality there are? What you just said is that your theory of morality is correct and that no-one else's is. In ethics however, the theory you are advocating is one of the worst theories ever. It is highly dodgey and must be maimed:Refuting the Divine Command Theory
Your claim (The Divine Command Theory)
The basic idea: God is both the source of moral truths, and (via the bible, church authorities, reason and prayer) the source of our access to the moral truths. God created the world and the moral values and moral laws along with it. What God commands/desires is good and right; and what God forbids/does not desire is wrong or bad.
"X is good/right" means "X is commanded by God" and "X is bad/wrong" means "X is forbidden by God".
[By God of course we mean the all good, all knowing, all powerful creator of the world. However this would make the definition of "good" in terms of God's commands circular. We would be defining good in terms of God and then defining God in terms of "good". So we'll define 'God' here as the all knowing, all powerful creator of the world.]
The good side of this is it is objective - human behaviour must conform to a higher moral law. Unforuntately, it is severely flawed.
Initial Problems
1. It presupposes the existence of God. This is obviously a MAJOR problem.
2. Divine Command Theory is tautological nonsense. What could it mean to say that God's commands are good? If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God," then "God's commands are good" would mean only "God’s commands are commanded by God" - which is a useless truism.
----
Is God the source or cause of moral values, or could there be morality without God?
The most important part is that God is indepedant of morality. Whether you're religious or not.
Assuming God exists, ask yourself this question:
Is a good thing good because God commands it,
or does God command it because it is good?
There are 2 answers.
The first:
God's commanding it is what causes it to be good. God is the good causer.
God created everything, therefore God must have created morality. Before God commanded anything, nothing was good; and before God forbade anything, nothing was bad.
What's wrong with this?
God's commands now look arbitrary. What reason did God have for commanding one thing, rather than another? What if God had commanded us to torture babies? In such a case that would mean torturing babies is good.
I'm sure you'll agree that such a proposition would be absurd. So we can't say that "good," by definition, is what the creator desires.
You might reply by saying that God, because he is all good, would never have commanded us to do these things. But this leaves us with circular reasoning (saying that the good things are all and only those things that an all good creator loves).
But consider this. If we say that the commands of a good creator makes things good, wouldn't the good act be good regardless of whether the creator commanded it? If so, what is good is determined independently of what the creator desires --
The second way of answer the quesiton
God is not the good causer, but the good detector. God commands us to act in certain ways because those acts are already and independently good, prior to god's commands. God forbids us from acting in certain ways (e.g. torturing babies) because those acts are wrong.
"God's commands are good" now means that he commands what he sees to be best (having perfect wisdom).
But morality is now indepedant of God! This means that there can be morality WITHOUT God! More importantly, God does not provide the objective source for morality, since rightness and wrongness are determined independently of God's commands.
Last edited:
mossup
can you do the mossup?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
so what.
read the bible, look at how many promises to david and others have come true. read about daniels vision, and then, Mabey then you will all be giving a mature side to this debate.
You always have to look at both sides of the story.
Read the bible. Decide for yourself. Treat it as a good story and read it all.
read the bible, look at how many promises to david and others have come true. read about daniels vision, and then, Mabey then you will all be giving a mature side to this debate.
You always have to look at both sides of the story.
Read the bible. Decide for yourself. Treat it as a good story and read it all.
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Not another one...mossup said:
MoonlightSonata said:
mossup
can you do the mossup?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
so what if i use the bible!!!!!! at least i've read it!!!
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
That's potentially the dumbest thing anyone has said in this entire thread, with the exception of "Jesus", posting before you.mossup said:
ur_inner_child
.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,084
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
*still reading*
mossup
can you do the mossup?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 245
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Okay…I wasn’t going to reply, but I just had to. Here is why the bible HAS to be used in this debate.
Human instinct didn’t come with morals. Morals don’t come naturally to humans. They have to be learned. So if morals weren’t human instinct…..then where did they come from???
THE BIBLE
The bible is the reason we have morals. Who wrote the bible?….well the bible is the inspired word of God. So there fore the bible was written by God. God wrote the 10 commandments and gave us morals. If we believe that the morals in the bible are good and right, then why don’t you believe that God exists?
People accepted these morals because the bible said. People believe that it is wrong to cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife, because the moral was learnt from the bible. so if u believe in morals, then you must believe in God. Because GOD made morals.
Human instinct didn’t come with morals. Morals don’t come naturally to humans. They have to be learned. So if morals weren’t human instinct…..then where did they come from???
THE BIBLE
The bible is the reason we have morals. Who wrote the bible?….well the bible is the inspired word of God. So there fore the bible was written by God. God wrote the 10 commandments and gave us morals. If we believe that the morals in the bible are good and right, then why don’t you believe that God exists?
People accepted these morals because the bible said. People believe that it is wrong to cheat on your girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife, because the moral was learnt from the bible. so if u believe in morals, then you must believe in God. Because GOD made morals.
If there was no Bible, and you cheated on your S.O., then when they find out, they would still be incredibly hurt, and might harm you or themselves... hence the "no adultery" commandment. Even societies which have never traditionally heard of God have traditional taboos on adultery. I guess it comes down to this: "Does God do what is good, or is what God does good simply because God does it?"