On what God is

[wesmorris]

God's existence isn't dependent on my (or your) subjective belief.

True, but your existence is such that you cannot know god without assuming it. You choose to assume it, but in doing so adopt the narcissitic attitude that you have some line on "objective morals"?

Insofar as God exists then there are objectively meaningful realities - purpose - everything meaningful is defined according to His will - everything objectively meaningful. I believe God exists. I believe that I have direction according to God's will - at least I try my best - hopefully that's good enough; thus I conclude there must be meaning to life on an objective front. Atheists on the other hand should surely have a hard time putting through any 'objective' philosophies or moralities they have on life.

The fact is that you presume your subjective interpretation of your stimulous must some how be reflective of some objective factuality, going so far as to imply you are knowledgeable of objective morals. I like you marc, excepting this aspect of your presumption. It's disgusting.

Subjective morals exist, no question. To presume there are objective morals and that you are privy to them is a recipe for death and war. That seems like the antithesis of your intention.

 

[MarcAC]

You choose to assume it, but in doing so adopt the narcissitic attitude that you have some line on "objective morals"?

The line is rationally based on the "assumption" Sir Morris.

The fact is that you presume your subjective interpretation of your stimulous must some how be reflective of some objective factuality, going so far as to imply you are knowledgeable of objective morals.

It all follows from the belief that God exists. I try my best based on what I percieve - as I said - hopefully it's good enough.

Subjective morals exist, no question.

Of course they do.

To presume there are objective morals and that you are privy to them is a recipe for death and war. That seems like the antithesis of your intention.

Not if you identify them using some objectivity. You just have to remember that the objective, when taken apart, is entirely subjective. Sometimes I really wonder what the point of objectivity is... but I guess it illustrates trust in yourself, your fellow man... and trust in God.

 

[§outh§tar]

Is there anything that isn't subjective relative to the human perspective?

You are the one who said:

Insofar as God exists then there are objectively meaningful realities - purpose - everything meaningful is defined according to His will - everything objectively meaningful.

I am quite sure you don't quite agree with the Aztecs who believed in making human sacrifices or Islam or Mormonism. I suppose they more or less believe in the same statement as you and yet what you all believe to be God's will is so different. Therefore your statement about "objectively meaningful realities" is false.. unless you can demonstrate why it is true.

Also, belief in God is rather arbitrary.
How so?

Some people choose to believe in God, some people don't. For people who choose to believe in God, some people choose to believe in the Catholic God, the Mormon God, the Muslim God, animist spirits and so on..

I don't. Where did I state that? God's existence isn't dependent on my (or your) subjective belief. Thus the statement "insofar" - neither is objectivity - go figure [edit - well objectivity as defined depends on each individual subjective perspective - but a true objective reality doesn't].

As I have shown above, "insofar as God exists" is a poor statement. Which God shall we arbitrarily choose? Moreover I didn't claim God's existence is dependent on subjective belief. But do tell me more about these "true objective" realities of yours anyway.

Well, it's simple really; If God, The Personal, Intelligent, Creator exists, then He created for a reason - meaning creation is defined by Him - He put it there for a purpose. In other words God defines objectivity... not me or you. That doesn't follow? How?

You are assuming what you are trying to show. Putting your conclusion in your premise. Circular. Circular. Circular.

You said God exists first. I did not complain. It does not follow, however, that if God exists, he is a "Personal, Intelligent, Creator". Unless you can tell us how you came by this knowledge 'objectively'..

 

[§outh§tar]

The line is rationally based on the "assumption" Sir Morris.

How convenient.. I even see the word "rationally" slipped in there.. //chuckles

Like I said earlier, the same goes for Muslims, Mormons, and ever other sect out there. How convenient to put yourself on a pedestal, hm?

Not to mention if you insist the statement is true because your assumption is true then there is nothing to discuss. You have made up your mind.

It all follows from the belief that God exists. I try my best based on what I percieve - as I said - hopefully it's good enough.

You again admit being subjective and yet have not even demonstrated why this 'objective reality' rhetoric is remotely valid. Claiming it is valid because your assumption that God exists is true is convenient and might be comfortable for you, but it is non sequitur all the same. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise..

 

[MarcAC]

I suppose they more or less believe in the same statement as you and yet what you all believe to be God's will is so different. Therefore your statement about "objectively meaningful realities" is false.. unless you can demonstrate why it is true.

Objective reality would underly the subjective realities. Let's stick to morality here. If we can find say, love among all the world religions [or all of humanity]. That is but one aspect of objective morality. I mostly assume all others follow. Sacrifices and what-not wouldn't be a part of it really. I would think that not all who were sacrificed submitted willingly to it. And frankly, I don't believe the Sun is God (arbitrary addressed below). However, subjective (and objective) moralities can most likely be identified by antitheses and paradoxes.

Some people choose to believe in God, some people don't. For people who choose to believe in God, some people choose to believe in the Catholic God, the Mormon God, the Muslim God, animist spirits and so on.

They have their reasons; thus not arbitrary. I believe in God the Creator, the Loving God, the Personal God. I believe Jesus is that Son of God. I see evidence for this which compels me the most. I really don't trust what Mohammed saw in that cave.

As I have shown above, "insofar as God exists" is a poor statement. Which God shall we arbitrarily choose? Moreover I didn't claim God's existence is dependent on subjective belief. But do tell me more about these "true objective" realities of yours anyway.

The All Powerful, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Loving Personal Creator.

You are assuming what you are trying to show. Putting your conclusion in your premise. Circular. Circular. Circular.

Not in any particular sense; God if you were to define God's characteristics are Intelligent, Personal Creator.

You said God exists first. I did not complain. It does not follow, however, that if God exists, he is a "Personal, Intelligent, Creator". Unless you can tell us how you came by this knowledge 'objectively'..

Well; personal because I exist and appear to have the faculty to know, experience, see, understand and interpret His (created - see below) works - we must at least have something in common. The primary thing I come up with is personhood.

"How do you know etc.?"

You see light and you interpret them as rays/waves/particles which are the product of two fields combined in a sense - that interpretation serves in the functioning of your computer. I see creation as I see a computer - something with structure and purpose - I assume it was created. Man is intelligent as defined by us. Man invented [come up with something]; man is intelligent. God created the Universe; God created intelligent man; God I would assume is at least as intelligent as man is; unless the word intelligence is more of an insult applied to Him. Whatever/Whoever created the Universe is What/Who I refer to as God.

It all follows from one simple article of faith - through interpreted evidence - God exists. Everything else follows.

 

[MarcAC]

Claiming it is valid because your assumption that God exists is true is convenient and might be comfortable for you, but it is non sequitur all the same. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Non sequitur? You sure? Please explain (demonstrate)... I don't get you.

 

[wesmorris]

The line is rationally based on the "assumption" Sir Morris.

It doesn't necessarily follow. It depends on the details of your assumption. To assume that there exists an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful entity does not directly imply objective morality. Not only to you assume god but you assume you are somehow privy to its will.

It all follows from the belief that God exists.

No, not necessarily.

I try my best based on what I percieve - as I said - hopefully it's good enough.[/color]

It works for you, what else can be said? Much I'm sure, but it's pointless.

Not if you identify them using some objectivity.

Why not then, demonstrate a means by which that can be done? You probably already know why... because it can't be done. If honest, even ridiculous objections render the attempt moot.

You just have to remember that the objective, when taken apart, is entirely subjective.

LOL. I already said that. Do you think it's objectively true? Regardless, you just undid any argument regarding objective morality.

Sometimes I really wonder what the point of objectivity is...

It's an attempt to explain things outside of one's self. Unfortunately one's self is all one has by which to do so, limiting the capacity for knowledge to the subjective - even if subjective perspectives align regarding that knowledge.

but I guess it illustrates trust in yourself, your fellow man... and trust in God.

To you, I'm sure the last element applies. Faith in your fellow man... at least a little... is IMO, a necessity for sanity.

 

[wesmorris]

I basically said the same thing directly prior to this statement by Raithere in another thread. I think he summarized the issue of god quite succinctly:

If God wanted me to believe in him, I would.
Therefore either God does not exist or God does not care if I believe in him or not.
Either way, I'm set.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

Non sequitur? You sure? Please explain (demonstrate)... I don't get you.

Non sequitur means it does not follow. Maybe it does, which is why I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate why your reasoning does follow.

 

[§outh§tar]

Objective reality would underly the subjective realities. Let's stick to morality here. If we can find say, love among all the world religions [or all of humanity]. That is but one aspect of objective morality. I mostly assume all others follow. Sacrifices and what-not wouldn't be a part of it really. I would think that not all who were sacrificed submitted willingly to it. And frankly, I don't believe the Sun is God (arbitrary addressed below). However, subjective (and objective) moralities can most likely be identified by antitheses and paradoxes.

The sacrifices were obviously not done in a spirit of love - people did not burn their children because they loved them, but because they wanted a bountiful season or wanted to appease an angry God. Hence, your objective morality rhetoric is smashed to pieces. Broken. Trampled. Unless of course you wish to find a spirit of love in Satanism

Is Satanism too part of this objective reality of yours or will you arbitrarily exclude it?

Also why do you ignore the possibility that God is an extrauniversal hedgehog who "craps out" universes. (Don't ask where the metaphor came from) This too is arbitrary; you ignore the equally valid possibility that 'creation' is spontaneous. You also ignore Deism and I would appreciate if you told me why you don't believe in either a spontaneous, 'nonpersonal' creation of the universe or Deism.

They have their reasons; thus not arbitrary. I believe in God the Creator, the Loving God, the Personal God. I believe Jesus is that Son of God. I see evidence for this which compels me the most. I really don't trust what Mohammed saw in that cave.

To quote water, "Uh." A couple of questions. Why don't you trust what Mohammed saw in that cave? You weren't there were you?

And what "evidence" leads you to believe Jesus is the Son of God?

The All Powerful, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Loving Personal Creator.

You still haven't told me how you came by the knowledge that God is this. All you have said is that you assume a lot of things after assuming God exists.

Not in any particular sense; God if you were to define God's characteristics are Intelligent, Personal Creator.

See above.

Well; personal because I exist and appear to have the faculty to know, experience, see, understand and interpret His (created - see below) works - we must at least have something in common. The primary thing I come up with is personhood.

Do you know what 'personhood' means? A human personality. Just because you observe those things doesn't mean you and God share a human personality. Besides, why arbitrarily assume you exist?

"How do you know etc.?"

You see light and you interpret them as rays/waves/particles which are the product of two fields combined in a sense - that interpretation serves in the functioning of your computer. I see creation as I see a computer - something with structure and purpose - I assume it was created. Man is intelligent as defined by us. Man invented [come up with something]; man is intelligent. God created the Universe; God created intelligent man; God I would assume is at least as intelligent as man is; unless the word intelligence is more of an insult applied to Him. Whatever/Whoever created the Universe is What/Who I refer to as God.

Huge errors in reasoning. Man arbitrarily says he is intelligent but does God say He is intelligent?

Also see here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/3_apndx.html

Your talk of "structure" and "purpose" being the signature of God is the same as Hume's and has been thoroughly refuted as you will see in the link. You need to come up with something better there.

Also what if God does not manifest Himself through structure and purpose? Why even assume He does?

It all follows from one simple article of faith - through interpreted evidence - God exists. Everything else follows.

It does not stop here. People who do not arbitrarily interpret the evidence the way the Bible wants them to will go to hell.

But to ask you personally, is it necessary to have faith in God? And why?

 

[MarcAC]

It doesn't necessarily follow. It depends on the details of your assumption. To assume that there exists an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful entity does not directly imply objective morality.

No, but if you see evidence for it then you may make the connection.

Why not then, demonstrate a means by which that can be done? You probably already know why... because it can't be done. If honest, even ridiculous objections render the attempt moot.

The only way that you will understand would be to consider the similarities between moral convictions of different cultures - thus elliminating the subjective, varying "moral" trivialities and focusing on those which prevail.

LOL. I already said that. Do you think it's objectively true? Regardless, you just undid any argument regarding objective morality.

I know you did. Not particularly - as I stated - God's existence does not depend on my belief however if God exists as I "define" (hate that) or see God then objective morality necessarily follows. It follows from God being the source of Objective Morals. Look at it like existence; that's how I see God. As sure as I exist, God exists. I experience my existence, I don't rationally derive it, however I can in a sense elliminate the alternative (non-existence). I just can never arrive at the conclusion that I don't exist. I see existence, I assume God.

It's an attempt to explain things outside of one's self. Unfortunately one's self is all one has by which to do so, limiting the capacity for knowledge to the subjective - even if subjective perspectives align regarding that knowledge.

Yeah, but I disagree that one only has oneself - one also has God.

To you, I'm sure the last element applies. Faith in your fellow man... at least a little... is IMO, a necessity for sanity.

To me they all necessarily apply. There is non without the other.

 

[MarcAC]

Non sequitur means it does not follow. Maybe it does, which is why I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate why your reasoning does follow.

I thought I did... but I guess you challenged it below in some sense... well in the post after the quoted... so I'll address your objections as best I can below...

 

[duendy]

" If I exist must mean there is a God"

How do you mean by that? intellectually or actually?
Most pople uderstand spirituality to be a belief in words from a 'holy book'. The believers in it may have experiences they assume proves the dogma of the book's words and meaning, but is that so? you MAy be subjectively imagining what you believe

Ancient peoples, and Indigenous peoples took hallucinogenic plants and had direct experience. a feeling of being more than what they felt they were before they had experience, SOME--coming to it with pre-established beliefs of good and evil and Nature being a trap--and these beliefs maybe originating from the experience--wold presume their non-ordinary experiences proved their beliefs,

so i see two strems. those that took hallucinogens and interpreted their experiences to bring them closer to Nature, and those whose interpreations made them feel more alienated from Nature

question: which is the more benevolent and plausible?

 

[water]

What I was trying to say is: you might think I was being facetious and extremist but to me I wasn't.

I know this too.
And I was being myself.

As follows from the above, nothing can be "meaningful" since we arbitrarily choose what is and what isn't meaningful.

Sub specie aeternitatis and without there being a God, I agree with what you said. But we do not see ourselves and our everyday lives sub specie aeternitatis.

Well what did you mean by "And if you had it, you wouldn't behave ... the way you do ... sometimes."

That seems to be cryptic to me. Not to you but to me.

A certain faith.


* * *

Insofar as God exists then there are objectively meaningful realities - purpose - everything meaningful is defined according to His will - everything objectively meaningful.

Exactly. We can say that God is the overarching organizational principle, the highest possible. As such, God is the instance of justification.

Atheists on the other hand should surely have a hard time putting through any 'objective' philosophies or moralities they have on life.

Yes -- as atheists have no highest overarching organizational principle. They have no ultimate instance of justification; all the instances of justification that they offer can be destroyed or refuted (esp. humanity).

* * *

The last time I checked the Atheist Bible , belief in God is rather subjective.

It is subjective, but it is not nonsense.

Also, belief in God is rather arbitrary.

Without God, everything has the status of beng arbitrary.

So why do you 'objectively' believe in God MarcAC?

*Why.*


Another problem, but for this, I will have to gather a flot of more knowledgeable than me, is this: The way many people view God and religion is strongly shaped by the Catholic view on faith, God and religion.

As far as I can tell, it is typical for the Catholics to see God as some foreign entity to which a human has only the relationship of slavery, and that part about God's love for humans seems somehow lost for them, it is there only nominally. Faith is some objective, absolutistic, impersonal conviction that one has no control over, but is responsible for it anyway. It is very masochistic.
On the other hand, there are Protestants with their emphasis on the personal relationship with God, believing that faith is something individual, something between God and you.

This is worth much further investigation.

 

[water]

God's existence isn't dependent on my (or your) subjective belief.

True, but your existence is such that you cannot know god without assuming it.

Pascal's Wager.

You choose to assume it, but in doing so adopt the narcissitic attitude that you have some line on "objective morals"?

No.
See below:

The fact is that you presume your subjective interpretation of your stimulous must some how be reflective of some objective factuality, going so far as to imply you are knowledgeable of objective morals. I like you marc, excepting this aspect of your presumption. It's disgusting.

Subjective morals exist, no question. To presume there are objective morals and that you are privy to them is a recipe for death and war. That seems like the antithesis of your intention.

I think there are two problems:

1. Misconceptualizations: What is sometimes referred to as "objective morals" is actually to mean 'morals that are held with absolutistic commitment and conviction'. Huge difference.

2. As for the recipes for death and war: Death and war are a fact of life, of evolution. "Only the strong survive."
I do not understand how people can hail evolution, yes, this is the ultimate truth!, but when it comes to the actual everyday application of evolution -- also crime, wars -- then people view this as some miscarriage of evolution.

"Only the strong survive" means that the big fish kills the small one. The word here is KILLS.

Nowadays, life has become so easy that we often fail to see it is real.


* * *

Not if you identify them using some objectivity. You just have to remember that the objective, when taken apart, is entirely subjective. Sometimes I really wonder what the point of objectivity is... but I guess it illustrates trust in yourself, your fellow man... and trust in God.

Objective reality and esp. the idea that objective reality is consistent is what keeps us sane.

If I would believe that when I step on ice and fall and what hapened is that the ground turned around and hit me -- then this would be a belief that I am consistent, but that objective reality is not consistent.
With all the things that happen to us, take place in the world -- to believe that we are consistent and the world isn't, is too overwhelming for us. It is possible to believe that objective reality is not consistent, while one is, but those who do that, usually become unable to function in this world.

* * *

I am quite sure you don't quite agree with the Aztecs who believed in making human sacrifices or Islam or Mormonism. I suppose they more or less believe in the same statement as you and yet what you all believe to be God's will is so different. Therefore your statement about "objectively meaningful realities" is false.. unless you can demonstrate why it is true.

It is strange though. I would say, without hesitation, that it is an objectively meaningful reality that I love my cat.
But I would stutter with hesitation at saying that God's love for humans is an objectively meaningful reality, or that mathematics is an objectively meaningful reality.

I say the whole problem comes from us thinking so much about life, instead of living it.

Some people choose to believe in God, some people don't. For people who choose to believe in God, some people choose to believe in the Catholic God, the Mormon God, the Muslim God, animist spirits and so on..

Choose ...
I think choice is a concept that needs a lot of elaboration!

You are assuming what you are trying to show. Putting your conclusion in your premise. Circular. Circular. Circular.

Oh, if only I could put in words, clearly, what I think!
Those things look circular, but they are actually the alignement of two systems.
Bear with me.

For starters, think of these things:

This is blue.
This is an upper-case K.
How do you read an upper-case k?

Like I said earlier, the same goes for Muslims, Mormons, and ever other sect out there. How convenient to put yourself on a pedestal, hm?

I know, to a non-believer, believers seem like putting themselves on pedestals! I feel this too, fight with it often. But I tell you that after some time, things begin to look differently.

Not to mention if you insist the statement is true because your assumption is true then there is nothing to discuss. You have made up your mind.

I think this is the clue.


* * *

Objective reality would underly the subjective realities. Let's stick to morality here. If we can find say, love among all the world religions [or all of humanity]. That is but one aspect of objective morality. I mostly assume all others follow. Sacrifices and what-not wouldn't be a part of it really. I would think that not all who were sacrificed submitted willingly to it. And frankly, I don't believe the Sun is God (arbitrary addressed below). However, subjective (and objective) moralities can most likely be identified by antitheses and paradoxes.

I don't think this is a good way to defend objective morality.
It is inductive, based on some statistics, and the best we get is some reduction that is not viable; a "happy multiculturalism" that nobody can actually live.
Imagine it with Venn diagrams: Draw a circle for Christianity, another one for Islam, another one for Zoroastrians etc. Then align them, see where they cover eachother. Indeed, what may come is that all have in common that love is an important value.

I don't mean to be a smartass, and right now, I don't have a better explanation than that inductive one either; but it seems to me that there is a better way to argue for objective morality.


* * *

It all follows from the belief that God exists.

No, not necessarily.

I agree with Marc. If you believe that God exists, then all those things follow.

But it is central to this that you actually do believe. You cannot verify or negate "It all follows from the belief that God exists" only by a thought experiment.

A belief that is Pascal's Wager is a thought experiment, this is why such a belief always remains hypothetical and can never neither verify nor negate "It all follows from the belief that God exists".


Courtesy of Cole Grey, from the Lack of faith thread:

Faith=commitment to an ideal.
Hence the phrase, "keep the faith"
Faith is not the same as belief. Keeping a belief, without being ignore-ant is not within your power if you are presented with enough ideas that seem to conflict with the truthfulness or usefulness of the ideal.
Doubt in the truthfulness or usefulness of the ideal is not lack of faith. Lack of faith is letting go of the commitment, or not making one.

(Belief and faith are not the same thing. I think atheists *believe* in God -- but they have no *faith* in God.
If they wouldn't believe in God, then they would in effect be talking about things they are persuaded that they do not exist.)

The crucial point here is that it is not within our power to decide what to believe and what not (as long as we are not being wilfully ignorant) -- if we are presented with enough ideas that seem to conflict with the truthfulness or usefulness of the ideal, our belief will change.

We cannot plan or predict what we believe.

It is in our power though to decide whether to commit to an ideal or not, whether to have faith in it or not.

It's an attempt to explain things outside of one's self. Unfortunately one's self is all one has by which to do so, limiting the capacity for knowledge to the subjective - even if subjective perspectives align regarding that knowledge.

While this is true and I agree, I think it is a dead end.
What explanatory value does it have if we say that everyting is subjective, that we cannot immediately address objective reality because of the observational distance etc.?


* * *

But to ask you personally, is it necessary to have faith in God? And why?

One simply does, if one does.
The why? *can* be answered, but it will mostly result in rendering faith in God as something conditional

To quote water, "Uh."

I am famous!

 

[MarcAC]

The sacrifices were obviously not done in a spirit of love - people did not burn their children because they loved them, but because they wanted a bountiful season or wanted to appease an angry God.

You sure? It all depends on what their beliefs were. They might have thought they were honouring their children or even themselves and doing a great and necessary service to their people for their survival. If love is not displayed there - I don't know what love is. Life isn't black and white. There are sacrifices of love - as in the Egyptian servants who were willingly locked into the tomb with the body of their dead Pharoah to serve Him/Her in the afterlife. There are sacrifices of devotion. Then you just have plain murder.

Is Satanism too part of this objective reality of yours or will you arbitrarily exclude it?

If Satanism has any morals directed towards a belief in God, sure. Do Satanists have any rites of love? I don't know - I don't profess to know everything, as stated some time back, however I do have my principles which I abide by - and through them I will continue to learn and thus more completely justify my faith. Nothing about my belief is arbitrary - it is all interpreted evidence through faith in God - which is itself not arbitrary.

This too is arbitrary; you ignore the equally valid possibility that 'creation' is spontaneous. You also ignore Deism and I would appreciate if you told me why you don't believe in either a spontaneous, 'nonpersonal' creation of the universe or Deism.

There is love in the world; therefore I don't believe in Deism. There are humans in the world who understand it - therefore I don't believe in an impersonal creator.

To quote water, "Uh." A couple of questions. Why don't you trust what Mohammed saw in that cave? You weren't there were you?

And what "evidence" leads you to believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Several scriptural witnesses and at least one non-scriptural witness who testify to God's Works and Jesus', Works and his fate. One man who saw something in a cave and had both Christian and Jusaic influences is another story. This would summarise - more than summarise (more or less) - my info on Islam. I somehow see Judaism, Christianity and Islam as three views of practically the same thing. The Christian one of salvation through Jesus makes the most sense to me. I guess I was predestined.

You still haven't told me how you came by the knowledge that God is this. All you have said is that you assume a lot of things after assuming God exists.

Where did I state that I have "knowledge" that God is this? If you didn't know; belief is not kowledge. Belief through inference is simply belief. I don't need to boisterously claim knowledge of anything. The Christian simply needs to believe through faith. However I have attempted to show how I came by my conclusion; if you don't understand or agree just state what you don't understand or simple say you disagree.

Do you know what 'personhood' means? A human personality. Just because you observe those things doesn't mean you and God share a human personality.

Personhood. Then you will want to look at person. Please take care to review all the definitions. I'm sure you will find the one applicable to God. Persons communicate. If you can communicate you must share certain characteristics.

Besides, why arbitrarily assume you exist?

See my post to Wes Morris.

Huge errors in reasoning. Man arbitrarily says he is intelligent but does God say He is intelligent?

Actually, man arbitrarily defines the characteristics of intelligence. Through that definition you can then apply the word to any such thing which displays those characteristics. That is, for example, why you can call both male and female human and an IMac and a HP device with with a housing, keyboard, monitor, CPU, memory etc... are called computers. Through the fact that we can understand what God the assumed Creator has done and use it through our intelligence (as arbitrarily defined) I assume that He is at least as intelligent as us - not to mention the fact that He created us.

Your talk of "structure" and "purpose" being the signature of God is the same as Hume's and has been thoroughly refuted as you will see in the link. You need to come up with something better there.

Not in particular. Your infidel reference is quite one sided in it's analysis, for example - assuming you read this part - the idea that if two classes of objects (x/y) have property p1 and x has property p1 as a result of p2 then it is probably the same for y may be true or false depending on the example given. The term "probably" may be invalid in use though because we can never exhaust all the possible scenarios to come up with some probability. However, it is possible and demonstrabely so. Light bulbs emit light due to a process of electron transfer - so do stars. Thus, though one may take the infidel view, the teleological view is just as valid. We have our free will - thanks to God. In the end we'll know who's faith was of true substance.

Also what if God does not manifest Himself through structure and purpose? Why even assume He does?

You see structure and purpose and you attribute such qualities to God - the Creator - the one who created such that we could recognise this structure and purpose. We create [purpose], and we, most times, can easily recognise something created by us [structure]. It is assumed, then, that since we recognise our creations through structure and thus purpose we may attribute the same qualities to that which we observe as structured - but beyond human capabilities.

It does not stop here. People who do not arbitrarily interpret the evidence the way the Bible wants them to will go to hell.

Well, that's up to them. If the Biblical evidence points them in one direction and they choose to go the other... too bad... their choice - free will. Faith in God is all that is needed - after that you do your best.

But to ask you personally, is it necessary to have faith in God? And why?

Yes, for me, otherwise existence doesn't make sense. Morals become truly arbitrary - no purpose - no one can reasonably justify their position - murder is what you believe it is good or bad - love is not justifiable - hate is justifiable or not justifiable - no absolutes - nothing - just a mass of elementary physical particles - suicide - why not - kill the whole human race - why not? Without God existence is confusion - look at Wes Morris.

 

[MarcAC]

Objective reality and esp. the idea that objective reality is consistent is what keeps us sane.

Agreed.

I don't think this is a good way to defend objective morality.
It is inductive, based on some statistics, and the best we get is some reduction that is not viable; a "happy multiculturalism" that nobody can actually live.
Imagine it with Venn diagrams: Draw a circle for Christianity, another one for Islam, another one for Zoroastrians etc. Then align them, see where they cover eachother. Indeed, what may come is that all have in common that love is an important value.

I don't mean to be a smartass, and right now, I don't have a better explanation than that inductive one either; but it seems to me that there is a better way to argue for objective morality.

Well taken. However, I think all moral values orginate from love - The Love of God - which, honestly I think is the objective (or absolute) moral value. Every other moral must show it. Do not kill. That, I believe, is not an objective moral as life is not in black and white. You may find yourself in the situation where you have to kill to show love. What if you have a gun, some guy/girl has a gun about to shoot your wife/husband and kid. You either shoot him or he shoots them. What do you do? "Thooooou shaaallt nooot kiiiiill." Freeze? Let's say it is the best I have that is presentable here.

 

[wesmorris]

Your view of life without god is the resultant of your own nuerosis.

Subjective morality is justifiable subjectively. Given access to my own mind, I don't need some imaginary being other than myself to justify my own experience. My morals am the resultant of my predaliction, choice and circumstance. It's real enough to me. I presume it.

It seems to me much more confusing to assume I understand things that are necessarily beyond my comprehension... like some big story about powerful beings that want me to obey them, even though they won't explicitely perscribe their direction. Honestly that seems childish to me. Obviously many disagree.

It does however, offer a number of advantages given the number of people who agree on the subject. A common basis, even if complete fantasy - offers significant organizational strength.

The issue of god is circular and to me, a completely unnecessary assumption. It's necessarily indeterminant from the most honest investigation I can conceive. As such, it will remain so unless my conception is radically altered.

How confusing. *smirk*

Bastard.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Is there anything that isn't subjective relative to the human perspective?

He doesn't get it, for some reason.......

Well, it's simple really; If God, The Personal, Intelligent, Creator exists, then He created for a reason - meaning creation is defined by Him - He put it there for a purpose. In other words God defines objectivity... not me or you. That doesn't follow? How?

Why would God need to create us for a reason? Why wouldn't He just create us spontaneously? Aren't us just His dream... a figment of His imagination?

 

[wesmorris]

Well, it's simple really; If God, The Personal, Intelligent, Creator exists, then He created for a reason

What makes you think, as a human... that your line of thought there has any relevance in the context of god? You have erroniously assumed you are privy to that which applies to a creator. Obviously you think you are, which is narcissisitic anthropomorphism. Reason does not apply to a "god" in the way you can conceive of it unless of course you assume it does... in which case you are sadly inconsistent with your reasoning. Perhaps god had no choice? Logically, the very concept of choice is simply innapplicable to a being of omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.

Choice and purpose only make sense in the context of linear time. God is by definition, not necessarily subject to that context.

- He put it there for a purpose.

So you presume.

In other words God defines objectivity... not me or you.

So you presume.

That doesn't follow? How?

As argued above.