Logical Analysis Of The Existence Of God!

[Sarkus]

There were less species back then because there wasn't much time for evolution to kick in much, ....

LOL!
Please tell me this is a joke, right?
Were you serious when you said all this?
How long ago did Moses exist?
And are you seriously suggesting there were significantly less species back then such that they could all fit on a boat?

Do you understand the "meaning" of atheism? Have you followed its logic to its conclusion? I don't know how your philosphical skills compare with Nietzsche, but he came to the conclusion that ....

Firstly, a philosopher's conclusion does not change a definition.

Secondly, the quotes / conclusions you have given do NOT even come close to suggesting that there is any truth behind the stories of God / Jesus etc, or that they themselves even believed in them.
If you read what you have written, the conclusions they have reached are that because society has been built for so long on these beliefs, that to suddenly remove them would be catastrophic.
Your quote: "According to Nietzsche, the loss of belief in God...." This is NOT the same as saying that this God must be true and MUST exist.
Furthermore, all philosophers can not help but include their own fears and the fears of society in their discourse.
What you have quoted of them seems to be nothing more than arguments from fear.... "We must believe in God because to not believe would cause a problem" and "God must exist because society would be bad without it."
Logical fallacies, all of them.

 

[Silas]

Do you understand the "meaning" of atheism? Have you followed its logic to its conclusion? I don't know how your philosphical skills compare with Nietzsche, but he came to the conclusion that "All purely moral demands without their religious basis must needs end in nihilism." Sartre, the father of existentialism, came to a similar conclusion: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted" (see The problem of morality on that website.)

"According to Nietzsche, the loss of belief in God will initiate a ‘monstrous logic of terror’ as we experience the collapse of all that was ‘built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality’. In notes made late in his career, Nietzsche calls this collapse of values ‘nihilism’, the ‘radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability’."​

Now going on past behaviour, I'm going to accuse you of resorting to Authority, and then you'll disclaim any such thing. Oh, Nietzche had good "philosophical" skills, therefore his belief in religion is supreme? What about Betrand Russell, one of Britain's well-acknowledged greatest philosophers? He was a total atheist. As was A.J. Ayer. The fact that philosophers disagreed on the existence or otherwise of God says precisely nothing about that existence or otherwise itself.

I'm very glad if you consider life precious because it's scarce. So you appreciate the economical value of your life, but so what? That alone doesn't make it meaningful. All people have just one life, but not many come to your conclusion. Compared to itself, a life might appear to have absolute value, but it's downhill from there. When you start considering your own life in relation to the rest of the universe - its relative value within the grand scheme of things - you might look around and see life is not so scarce at all; there are millions of lifeforms on earth that are better suited to their environment than you, which makes them relatively more "worthy" than yours.

Why does their suitability to the environment make them more or less "worthy"? Worthy of what? As long as we're here, we're evidently worthy of survival. But all species pretty much by evolutionary forces consider their own species' existence pretty important, and their individual existence within it as of prime importance. If I weren't here, I would not be making any kind of difference, and I would not be experiencing the Universe. What is important within my life is to bring some measure of happiness to other people.

Or from another perspective: suicide bombers also live only once. Do they consider all life important, precious and meaningful?

Not quite sure if you realise what you've just done. You've highlighted suicide bombers as if their disregard for life is a better argument than the (supposedly meaningless) life of the average atheist. I think you need to rethink that one, Jen...!

Sure, they have only one life, but the earth has lots, so their own life is the only "precious, meaningful" one relatively speaking. If you only have this life, it's just as easy to come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what you do, because nothing has any meaning beyond death: "There's no good or evil, only death".

But uh, suicide bombers actually nearly all do what they do in the promise of things to come. They are led by people who want political ends, sure, but those leaders use the bombers' religious convictions to make them do what they do. A clear case of "this one life only" scoring over "afterlife", I think!

Furthermore, it may surprise you to learn this, Jenyar, but atheists are actually as aware of the continuity of other life after our own life, just as much as any theist is. In other words, I try to lead a life that might have an effect on other people (for the good, I hasten to add!) that might continue after I'm gone. On a selfish level that might be the attempt to create some kind of art or other legacy that lives on after me, or on a more altruistic level, I may have a family one day that I would wish to provide for, and something I did may help them continue after I have died. So, no, atheists don't do what they want because "nothing has any meaning beyond death", because they know as everybody else does that things do have meaning after one's own personal death. Of course, there are people who behave the way you describe for the reason you describe, but those people are sociopaths and psychopaths in any case.

Or take a look at atheistic (no-god) religions, like Buddhism, who say you have a continuous cycle of lives. Do they consider life more or less precious than if it ended at death?

I've no idea. I prefer to think of Buddhism as un-thestic, rather than atheistic. The atheist view as I understand it (and why I call myself an atheist, after all) is not shared by Buddhists, and Buddhists cannot be lumped in with atheists just because they don't believe in a personalised God. They believe in something supernatural, (after all, there must be a mechanism for the operation of karma, right?) and atheists do not. So their view of continuous cycles of life is not really relevant.

 

[Silas]

Let me also take this from the opposite view: say all my efforts are in vain, and in fact I do not help other people, and do not have a family or leave any kind of legacy. As I lie on my deathbed I will regret that my life did not, after all, have any meaning whatsoever (this would if I were to be killed tomorrow, for instance). But I cannot accept that a belief in God would actually provide a meaning that isn't there. All it is is consolation - to say, "My life was utterly meaningless, it must have been all part of God's master plan." That by itself does not actually add meaning to my life.

 

[yank]

Do you understand the "meaning" of atheism? Have you followed its logic to its conclusion? I don't know how your philosphical skills compare with Nietzsche, but he came to the conclusion that "All purely moral demands without their religious basis must needs end in nihilism." Sartre, the father of existentialism, came to a similar conclusion: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted" (see The problem of morality on that website.)

"According to Nietzsche, the loss of belief in God will initiate a ‘monstrous logic of terror’ as we experience the collapse of all that was ‘built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality’. In notes made late in his career, Nietzsche calls this collapse of values ‘nihilism’, the ‘radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability’."​

you are highly mistaken my friend...
you speak like any other staunch religious person who will never try to face reality and will always stay under a shell...
atheists have long been termed as sinners...
in fact they have they given the world's most intellectual monarchs in history...
"All purely moral demands without their religious basis must needs end in nihilism."
i disagree with this statment...
atheists are ethical and not immoral...
in fact the religious breed has given the world's most famous terrorists... how do you explain that???
religion creates discrimination among the people leading to desire for power and superiority... which ultimately leads to war...
this is seen in everyday life... how can you even think of calling us immoral???

 

[MarcAC]

A LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD...[]
...Now you yourself can answer god's existence!

It's good to see that it has gotten to the stage where almost no theist has to provide any comprehensive answers to botched up caricatures of God such as these.

 

[MarcAC]

The fact that philosophers disagreed on the existence or otherwise of God says precisely nothing about that existence or otherwise itself.

That can really be said about humanity, it's perceptions, and any potential thing... aaaaaaaanyyyything.

So what does it say then?

What is important within my life is to bring some measure of happiness to other people.

But why?

 

[Jenyar]

Now going on past behaviour, I'm going to accuse you of resorting to Authority, and then you'll disclaim any such thing. Oh, Nietzche had good "philosophical" skills, therefore his belief in religion is supreme? What about Betrand Russell, one of Britain's well-acknowledged greatest philosophers? He was a total atheist. As was A.J. Ayer. The fact that philosophers disagreed on the existence or otherwise of God says precisely nothing about that existence or otherwise itself.

Nietzsche was an atheist par excellance. He called himself the anti-christ. I didn't quote him about God's existence, I quoted him on the logical conclusion of atheism.

Why does their suitability to the environment make them more or less "worthy"? Worthy of what? As long as we're here, we're evidently worthy of survival. But all species pretty much by evolutionary forces consider their own species' existence pretty important, and their individual existence within it as of prime importance. If I weren't here, I would not be making any kind of difference, and I would not be experiencing the Universe. What is important within my life is to bring some measure of happiness to other people.

How important you consider yourself has very little to do with your absolute worth. I'm talking about "real" or intrinsic worth. Your worth is assigned, and I contend that if it isn't assigned by God, all our efforts are relative and subjective and therefore of no consequence. It becomes "hey, whatever rings your bell".

Not quite sure if you realise what you've just done. You've highlighted suicide bombers as if their disregard for life is a better argument than the (supposedly meaningless) life of the average atheist. I think you need to rethink that one, Jen...! But uh, suicide bombers actually nearly all do what they do in the promise of things to come. They are led by people who want political ends, sure, but those leaders use the bombers' religious convictions to make them do what they do. A clear case of "this one life only" scoring over "afterlife", I think!

That's just the thing - a suicide bombers self-assigned worth is no different than your self-assigned worth if there is no objective value. Their "promise of things to come" is just as valid/invalid as your faith in things not to come, if there is no God. Remember, we're talking about the logical conclusion of atheism here, so why they do things is only relevant as "how someone likes to assign worth to things". From an atheistic viewpoint, worth must be assigned, and how you assign it is your own business. You can think like a suicide bomber or like a saint, but there is no other measurement, no "objective morality".

Furthermore, it may surprise you to learn this, Jenyar, but atheists are actually as aware of the continuity of other life after our own life, just as much as any theist is. In other words, I try to lead a life that might have an effect on other people (for the good, I hasten to add!) that might continue after I'm gone. On a selfish level that might be the attempt to create some kind of art or other legacy that lives on after me, or on a more altruistic level, I may have a family one day that I would wish to provide for, and something I did may help them continue after I have died. So, no, atheists don't do what they want because "nothing has any meaning beyond death", because they know as everybody else does that things do have meaning after one's own personal death. Of course, there are people who behave the way you describe for the reason you describe, but those people are sociopaths and psychopaths in any case.

Nothing says you can't assign worth to things you do, based on assumptions about the after-life (which does make the rejection of a God or gods look a little strange). The principle is the same though: If the afterlife is merely an extention of this one, it doesn't really encourage any objective meaning. The motivation Buddhists use to measure the worth of things is it to escape from this cycle of birth and death, but it's still a self-assigned meaning. You can be a suicidal immortal or a benevolent immortal, and it wouldn't make much difference in the overall scheme of things.

I've no idea. I prefer to think of Buddhism as un-thestic, rather than atheistic. The atheist view as I understand it (and why I call myself an atheist, after all) is not shared by Buddhists, and Buddhists cannot be lumped in with atheists just because they don't believe in a personalised God. They believe in something supernatural, (after all, there must be a mechanism for the operation of karma, right?) and atheists do not. So their view of continuous cycles of life is not really relevant.

Nope, karma is just a natural balance, a natural "justice". It's the way things work, and has nothing to do with a deity. If you don't believe there are gods, you're an a-theist. Have a look: Is Buddhism Atheistic?.

 

[Jenyar]

atheists are ethical and not immoral...

Of course they are - everybody is born with a conscience, as this is what they've been created with. But if it's just the result of a "selfish gene", it has nothing to do with the worth of life. It's just a survival mechanism. The question is whether it's logical for an atheist to be ethical by objective standards, if he doesn't believe in such an objective standard.

 

[DarkEyedBeauty]

but the point is not all the philosophers in history were atheists!
so there i can contradict!

But I would argue that they were not true philosophers. At least not when talking on that subject. They did not have the open mind.

 

[jayleew]

how can you even think of calling us immoral???

If man is deciding what is immoral, then we are all saints. This is an age of relative morality, where the individual is deciding what is right, and the lawyers back up whatever it is, all because the founding fathers were not perfect law writers and never dreamed of a country without God.

Even "Christians" today do not know what is right or wrong. Most of this country are proclaimed Christians, but yet they don't stand together and tell the politicians what is right or wrong. Morality is becoming non-existent. Revelation tells of when what is immoral is deemed moral, and moral is deemed immoral.

Wake up America!

 

[jayleew]

How important you consider yourself has very little to do with your absolute worth. I'm talking about "real" or intrinsic worth. Your worth is assigned, and I contend that if it isn't assigned by God, all our efforts are relative and subjective and therefore of no consequence. It becomes "hey, whatever rings your bell".


That's just the thing - a suicide bombers self-assigned worth is no different than your self-assigned worth if there is no objective value. Their "promise of things to come" is just as valid/invalid as your faith in things not to come, if there is no God. Remember, we're talking about the logical conclusion of atheism here, so why they do things is only relevant as "how someone likes to assign worth to things". From an atheistic viewpoint, worth must be assigned, and how you assign it is your own business. You can think like a suicide bomber or like a saint, but there is no other measurement, no "objective morality".

Exactly! No supreme being = no objective morality. We need that third party involved.

Nope, karma is just a natural balance, a natural "justice". It's the way things work, and has nothing to do with a deity. If you don't believe there are gods, you're an a-theist. Have a look: Is Buddhism Atheistic?.

That is a great way to live life in theory! Except it is theory. Let me see it in action. Let's see a Buddhist put his life on the line FOR his hated rival who torments him and tortures him and kills his family and everything he holds dear, all for the sake of saving his bitter enemy's life.

I have seen that act many times, but they were Christians filled with something greater than karma.

Buddah tried too hard. There is a much simpler way to live filled with "karma".

 

[Sarkus]

Exactly! No supreme being = no objective morality. We need that third party involved.

Firstly, who says there is objective morality? Isn't that like saying there's objective "dress sense"?
Secondly, why do we even need objective morality????

Morality is nothing but that which society has given us.
Morality is driven by society.
Morality has changed over time according to society. It is a man-made abstract concept. It has no "objectivity".

I have seen that act many times, but they were Christians filled with something greater than karma.

Really? With your own eyes? And they did this merely because they were Christians?

Or is it merely that you have read books describing these events?
And then isn't more likely that you merely haven't read books or stories about other religious people doing exactly the same type of acts.
Unless I'm wrong - and that you have read many books where Buddhists actively do not show this kind of behaviour?

 

[yank]

Of course they are - everybody is born with a conscience, as this is what they've been created with. But if it's just the result of a "selfish gene", it has nothing to do with the worth of life. It's just a survival mechanism. The question is whether it's logical for an atheist to be ethical by objective standards, if he doesn't believe in such an objective standard.

of course its logical for an atheist to be ethical unlike the believers who try to be ethical by their religious standards... but they are not successful in being so!

 

[yank]

But I would argue that they were not true philosophers. At least not when talking on that subject. They did not have the open mind.

now thats your opinion on them...
but face the fact... they were indeed philosophers!

 

[DarkEyedBeauty]

now thats your opinion on them...
but face the fact... they were indeed philosophers!

I don't know that anyone has ever taken up the argument, but I plan to in my grad years. Honestly, 'religious philosophers' don't really fit the definition of philosopher.

 

[yank]

Honestly, 'religious philosophers' don't really fit the definition of philosopher.

i agree to that one now!

 

[jayleew]

Firstly, who says there is objective morality? Isn't that like saying there's objective "dress sense"?
Secondly, why do we even need objective morality????

Morality is nothing but that which society has given us.
Morality is driven by society.
Morality has changed over time according to society. It is a man-made abstract concept. It has no "objectivity".

I agree with all your statements. That is my point, which I failed to say and you have said simply.

Why do we need objective morality?

What happens 1000 years after morality has evolved through society?

Are you saying morality is meant to be broken?

Morality will no longer be relevant because it changes to suit society. If morals need to be changed, then their is no use in having those morals at all if they can be broken and changed to accomodate. Instead they will be called guidelines.

That means if I want to have take a whiz on a tree in public, and I am determined, I am patient, and somehow convince a lot of people that it is okay and perfectly natural, then it will be deemed moral. So, what is morality then?

A government without objective morality that does not change is a dying government because the lack of it will breed chaos/anarchy. Need proof? Examine our moral code today with 100 years ago. Do we turn a blind eye?

Really? With your own eyes? And they did this merely because they were Christians?

Yes, I have seen this behavior. I never said I saw it first-hand, but if there was a compelling video discrediting Chrstianity, do you not believe it because it is recorded accounts of the actions of people?

Most missionaries exhibit this behavior. One story was of the Saint family

Unless I'm wrong - and that you have read many books where Buddhists actively do not show this kind of behaviour?

I have proof of at least one family exhibiting this behavior in the name of Christ. Can you name any one else you have read or seen exhibit this behavior? I suppose that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I suppose that doesn't mean they do either.

So, I have proof of one, and you have none (yet), but if you say it is there that is foolish.

 

[Silas]

Jenyar

Nietzsche was an atheist par excellance. He called himself the anti-christ. I didn't quote him about God's existence, I quoted him on the logical conclusion of atheism.

So, no answer to my charge that you were making an argument by reference to Authority, then? (I thought there was something about Nietzsche being atheist, but I've never read him, I'm afraid.)

How important you consider yourself has very little to do with your absolute worth. I'm talking about "real" or intrinsic worth. Your worth is assigned, and I contend that if it isn't assigned by God, all our efforts are relative and subjective and therefore of no consequence. It becomes "hey, whatever rings your bell".

This thing of worth being externally "assigned" is a matter of your personal faith, therefore nothing to do with logic.

That's just the thing - a suicide bombers self-assigned worth is no different than your self-assigned worth if there is no objective value. Their "promise of things to come" is just as valid/invalid as your faith in things not to come, if there is no God. Remember, we're talking about the logical conclusion of atheism here, so why they do things is only relevant as "how someone likes to assign worth to things". From an atheistic viewpoint, worth must be assigned, and how you assign it is your own business. You can think like a suicide bomber or like a saint, but there is no other measurement, no "objective morality".

Well, as has been argued above, there is no objective morality. I still don't see where this gets us as far as having a logical reason for rejecting atheism. If you happen to be a theist, but in fact there is no God, your assigned value is no less arbitrary or subjective than the atheist's.

Furthermore, it may surprise you to learn this, Jenyar, but atheists are actually as aware of the continuity of other life after our own life, just as much as any theist is. In other words, I try to lead a life that might have an effect on other people (for the good, I hasten to add!) that might continue after I'm gone. On a selfish level that might be the attempt to create some kind of art or other legacy that lives on after me, or on a more altruistic level, I may have a family one day that I would wish to provide for, and something I did may help them continue after I have died. So, no, atheists don't do what they want because "nothing has any meaning beyond death", because they know as everybody else does that things do have meaning after one's own personal death. Of course, there are people who behave the way you describe for the reason you describe, but those people are sociopaths and psychopaths in any case.

Nothing says you can't assign worth to things you do, based on assumptions about the after-life (which does make the rejection of a God or gods look a little strange).

That sounds like you did not understand a single word I wrote at that point. There is life after death ..... for other people. Not a personally experienced life after death or any other form of immortality. So, not inconsistent with the rejection of God at all.

The principle is the same though: If the afterlife is merely an extention of this one, it doesn't really encourage any objective meaning. The motivation Buddhists use to measure the worth of things is it to escape from this cycle of birth and death, but it's still a self-assigned meaning. You can be a suicidal immortal or a benevolent immortal, and it wouldn't make much difference in the overall scheme of things.

Well, now, this is more like it! You're finally seeing things my way! We're approaching the reasons that I am an atheist!

Nope, karma is just a natural balance, a natural "justice". It's the way things work, and has nothing to do with a deity. If you don't believe there are gods, you're an a-theist. Have a look: Is Buddhism Atheistic?.

As I tried to explain, my definition of atheism extends to a rejection of the supernatural. Buddhist karma theory is based on perception of what makes a good balance and preaches effects after your death on your "next life". Since there is no actual rational basis for these beliefs, I accept Buddhism is Atheistic, but I would not call Buddhists "atheists" and I would not say that believers in Buddhism subscribe to atheism.

As has happened to me before, the link you posted actually worked against the point you were trying to make. Buddhists aren't atheists just because they don't believe in a Creator God. In fact the page you linked states that many Buddhist sects have incorporated deities of various kinds, on top of which there is certainly an amount of Buddha-worship.

 

[Jenyar]

JenyarSo, no answer to my charge that you were making an argument by reference to Authority, then? (I thought there was something about Nietzsche being atheist, but I've never read him, I'm afraid.)

You take offense that I quote a philosopher but you don't know his work? Would your reaction therefore have been the same if I quoted little Jimmy around the corner? But I have to point out, your argument is also "by reference to Authority": your own authority.

This thing of worth being externally "assigned" is a matter of your personal faith, therefore nothing to do with logic.

That remains to be seen. The logic goes this way: if something does not have intrinsic worth, all "worth" must be assigned. Do you believe life has intrinsic worth, and if so, what is the logic behind it?

Well, as has been argued above, there is no objective morality. I still don't see where this gets us as far as having a logical reason for rejecting atheism. If you happen to be a theist, but in fact there is no God, your assigned value is no less arbitrary or subjective than the atheist's.

There's no logical reason to reject atheism if you accept nihilism (the logical consequence of there being no objective morality or moral authority). The problem is, it seems you don't accept nihilism.

That sounds like you did not understand a single word I wrote at that point. There is life after death ..... for other people. Not a personally experienced life after death or any other form of immortality. So, not inconsistent with the rejection of God at all.

Oh, so you revert to externally assigned worth only when it suits your argument, otherwise it is "just my personal faith"? Your "life after death" scenario assumes that other people may validly think your life has worth just because they happened to know you (or of you). But as you say, that's there personal faith, and has nothing to do with logic. From atheism, it logically follows that your life is worth no more or less than anybody else, whether someone thinks it was or not. Unless you think worth is intrinsic (internally objective), which you'll have to explain.

Well, now, this is more like it! You're finally seeing things my way! We're approaching the reasons that I am an atheist!

Because it supposes you've not been "fooled" into seeking morality where there isn't any. That doesn't mean your conclusions should logically be any different than my conclusion from Buddhism: your life - and therefore what you do - makes no difference in the overall scheme of things, and hence any "morality" is just a smoke screen for personal preferences.

As I tried to explain, my definition of atheism extends to a rejection of the supernatural. Buddhist karma theory is based on perception of what makes a good balance and preaches effects after your death on your "next life". Since there is no actual rational basis for these beliefs, I accept Buddhism is Atheistic, but I would not call Buddhists "atheists" and I would not say that believers in Buddhism subscribe to atheism.

As has happened to me before, the link you posted actually worked against the point you were trying to make. Buddhists aren't atheists just because they don't believe in a Creator God. In fact the page you linked states that many Buddhist sects have incorporated deities of various kinds, on top of which there is certainly an amount of Buddha-worship.

Maybe you didn't understand my point. It didn't depend on whether some sects of Buddhism eventually embraced the idea of deities. My point rests on how the lack of a moral authority (or what you call atheism) makes any morality into a farce, and any "worth" subjective and arbitrarily assigned.

 

[Sarkus]

I agree...

...A government without objective morality that does not change is a dying government because the lack of it will breed chaos/anarchy. Need proof? Examine our moral code today with 100 years ago. Do we turn a blind eye?

So you agree that there is no such thing as objective morality?
Then why do you claim that it exists, and why do you claim that for it to exist their must be a god?

And how can "objective morality" change? It is objective by definition. A changing "objective morality" is not objective.
Your ideas are confused and I am not sure I am understanding your point.
Morality is of the time.
It is therefore not objective.

Yes, I have seen this behavior. I never said I saw it first-hand...

You either saw it or you didn't. If it is merely second-hand information then please detail it as such, but don't say "I have seen" and then claim not to have seen it first hand.
So you read about it. Fine. Okay.

...but if there was a compelling video discrediting Chrstianity, do you not believe it because it is recorded accounts of the actions of people?

No. I would view the video as personal accounts of individuals. Nothing more.

Most missionaries exhibit this behavior. One story was of the Saint family

Evidence, please, that most exhibit this behaviour.

I have proof of at least one family exhibiting this behavior in the name of Christ.

I have proof of at least one family NOT exhibiting this behaviour in the name of Christ.

Can you name any one else you have read or seen exhibit this behavior? I suppose that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I suppose that doesn't mean they do either.

LOL! You need to differentiate the existence of god with the psychological effects that the belief in god has on people.
Again I say that religion, belief in god, can have profound beneficial effects on people - psychologically - which will effect how they live their life. But it doesn't provide evidence for god. It merely provides evidence of a psychological benefit, for some, of having the belief in god.