Proof that God exists.

Re: few words

Originally posted by hippo

Moral unison is not equivalent to moral absolute. Go back and read your introduction to logic books.


Uh huh, why don't you answer my question? Do you believe in moral absolutes?

In ethics an absolute value is one that is good in itself rather than useful for obtaining something else, and an absolute principle is one that permits no exceptions.
 
Well, I do like the explanations given at www.about.com. A nice web encycploedia. The section at http://atheism.about.com/cs/abouttheism/ has a lot of nice descriptions, far too much to copy into sciforums, but feel free to have a read of that particular site, it's very good.

I can't get into Britannica.com without paying, which really sucks.

Let's see what www.encyclopedia.com says:

theism
Related: Greek Religions

(the´izem) , in theology and philosophy, the belief in a personal God. It is opposed to atheism and agnosticism and is to be distinguished from pantheism and deism (see deists ). Unlike pantheists, theists do not hold God to be identical to the universe. Like deists, they believe that God created the universe and transcends it; unlike the deists, they hold that God involves himself in human affairs. For a summary of the arguments that support theism, see God.

atheism
Related: Philosophy

(a´the-izem) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism , which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.

agnosticism
Related: Philosophy

(agnos´tisizem) , form of skepticism that holds that the existence of God cannot be logically proved or disproved. Among prominent agnostics have been Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and T. H. Huxley (who coined the word agnostic in 1869). Immanuel Kant was an agnostic who argued that belief in divinity can rest only on faith. Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism , which asserts that there is no God.

skepticism
Related: Philosophy

(skep´tisizem) [Gr.,to reflect], philosophic position holding that the possibility of knowledge is limited either because of the limitations of the mind or because of the inaccessibility of its object. It is more loosely used to denote any questioning attitude. Extreme skepticism holds that no knowledge is possible, but this is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself. The first important skeptical view was held by Democritus , who saw sense perception as no certain guide to objective reality. The Sophists were the earliest group of skeptics. Protagoras taught the relativity of knowledge, and Gorgias held that either nothing could be known, or if anything were known, it could not be communicated. Pyrrho , regarded as the father of skepticism, later held a similarly extreme position, seeing reality as inaccessible. Arcesilaus taught that certitude is impossible and only probable knowledge is attainable. In the Renaissance, skepticism is seen in the writings of Michel de Montaigne , Pierre Charron , and Blaise Pascal . For René Descartes skepticism was a methodology that allowed him to arrive at certain incontrovertible truths. At the end of the 17th cent., Pierre Bayle skeptically challenged philosophical and theological theories. David Hume , a leading modern skeptic, challenged established assumptions about the self, substance, and causality. The skeptical aspect of Immanuel Kant's philosophy is exemplified by his agnosticism ; his antinomies of reason demonstrate that certain problems are insoluble by reason. To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause.

Bibliography: See R. H. Popkin, The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (rev. ed. 1968); C. L. Stough, Greek Skepticism (1969); M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983); B. Stroud, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism (1984).

materialism
Related: Philosophy

in philosophy, a widely held system of thought that explains the nature of the world as entirely dependent on matter, the fundamental and final reality beyond which nothing need be sought. Certain periods in history, usually those associated with scientific advance, are marked by strong materialistic tendencies. The doctrine was formulated as early as the 4th cent. BC by Democritus , in whose system of atomism all phenomena are explained by atoms and their motions in space. Other early Greek teaching, such as that of Epicurus and Stoicism , also conceived of reality as material in its nature. The theory was later renewed in the 17th cent. by Pierre Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes, who believed that the sphere of consciousness essentially belongs to the corporeal world, or the senses. The investigations of John Locke were adapted to materialist positions by David Hartley and Joseph Priestley. They were a part of the materialist development of the 18th cent., strongly manifested in France, where the most extreme thought was that of Julien de La Mettrie . The culminating expression of materialist thought in this period was the Système de la nature (1770), for which Baron d' Holbach is considered chiefly responsible. A reaction against materialism was felt in the later years of the 18th cent., but the middle of the 19th cent. brought a new movement, largely psychological in interpretation. Two of the modern developments of materialism are dialectical materialism and physicalism, a position formulated by some members of the Logical Positivist movement. Closely related to materialism in origin are naturalism and sensualism.

Bibliography: See D. M. Armstrong, Materialist Theory of the Mind (1968); P. M. Churchland, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of the Mind (1979) and Matter and Consciousness (1984).

animism
Related: Greek Religions

belief in personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) that often inhabit ordinary animals and objects, governing their existence. British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor argued in Primitive Culture (1871) that this belief was the most primitive and essential form of religion, and that it derived from people's self-conscious experience of the intangible, such as one's reflected image or dreams. He has been criticized for deducing that the chief function of religion is to explain various phenomena. Robert Marett studied among the Melanesians of the South Seas, noting the concept of mana, or supernatural power independent of any soul. He described the belief in such a force as animatism. People may also use mana; for example, a weapon that has killed many animals may be thought to have mana, and charms believed to have mana may be placed to protect gardens. French sociologist Emile Durkheim , in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912, tr. 1965), argued that the roots of religion lay in totemism (see totem ), where certain objects or animals are treated as sacred objects. Although these early conceptions of animism, animitism, and totemism have been contested and revised, the terms are still used by some anthropologists to describe certain religious beliefs and rituals. See fetish ; taboo ; amulet ; idol ; shaman ; ancestor worship .

I'm not sure where encyclopedia.com is based, couldn't be bothered getting their IP and all.

I used to have some very old English encyclopedia here, but I took them up to uni a couple of months ago. I'd like to get their definitions.
 
Which question?

If, Chosen, you are asking if I believe in moral absolutes, then yes...yes I do, absolutely.

Your ethics textbook does not gel with your statement of having to survey everyone to find a consensus on a moral absolute. Do you believe yourself or the textbook?
 
Re: Which question?

Originally posted by hippo
If, Chosen, you are asking if I believe in moral absolutes, then yes...yes I do, absolutely.

Your ethics textbook does not gel with your statement of having to survey everyone to find a consensus on a moral absolute. Do you believe yourself or the textbook?

I'm unsure about the moral absolutes, but man knows it is wrong to kill and so on. Could you name some moral absolutes you believe in? Then I may agree with you.

If everyone agree's to a certain point, it technically becomes an absolute. But this is just my opinion, you were correct.
 
A moral absolute: Don't kill your own offspring. Yes, it happens in China, and the people who do it don't like it. It is morally offensive to them. Apart from Caligula, I don't know of anyone who sees it as a positive thing.
 
Originally posted by Adam
A moral absolute: Don't kill your own offspring. Yes, it happens in China, and the people who do it don't like it. It is morally offensive to them. Apart from Caligula, I don't know of anyone who sees it as a positive thing.

Yes I agree, but some people are twisted as you acknowledged in another thread.

So should we discount their voice? or what? How can we be so sure of it as a moral absolute? Do we know what everyone thinks? We can only believe. Do you believe Adam?
 
Society works by consesus. The voices of deranged killers and such are discounted. And since we are talking of consenus among society, that would pretty much rule out those twisted individuals.
 
absolut

# 1 - 3 Mr. Chosen are some specific absolutes, but once again, a consensus does not necessitate equality with an absolute moral good. The Nazi party was a pretty powerful consensus against Jewish and non-Aryan existence AND they tried to foist it on the world. Though perhaps you could argue they were a minority consensus that owned the guns...but I digress.

There exists either absolutes or there does not; consensus or no.

Unless anyone would care to state:
"Are there Absolutes? Absolutely not!"
 
ah how the heathens rage

Boo hoo, zero,

Afraid a little whisper might direct you where you want not to go? Happy little firefly, why is it not valid? what is not valid the question or the idea....


hippo[heehee]
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by hippo
Happy little firefly, why is it not valid? what is not valid the question or the idea....
The idea. I explained it somewhere. The nature of God, as of religion is that it is a belief. Despite what anyone says, you connot "know" God exists, you can only have a strong belief. Once you start trying to prove God's existence, you are giong beyond religion, and the idea of God (which should be based on faith).
 
I see

Firefly,

I see what you are saying...I did not read back in this thread. For the most part I agree with you, though I do believe there are plenty of hints and 'proofs' of a second order AND that there are some miraculous events that occur that the experiencing group, once thouroughly examining alternative explanations, can consider proof. These items, too, will be rejected by people who are antagonistic to the idea. There is a grand chasm, too, between someone 'knowing' something and 'proving' that that something exists. I know the Isle of Man exists, but I have only seen it on a map...my proof is that it is on many maps and many people speak of it as real. Most times the democracy of knowledge and history from trustworthy persons is the sole source of our knowing something and we accept as proof the words we have read or heard....
After St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a lifetime building a philosophical and theological framework for the beliefs as held by the Roman Catholic Church, he ultimately compared the intellectual side of faith as 'straws in the wind' compared to a personal experience of God.
From whence does goodness come? Can you prove that justice and rightness exist? Why should I not steal all your belongings or slander your name in order to further my career. These are the same sorts of categories which are difficult to prove and their existence is based on acceptance more often than of proof.

hippo
 
Originally posted by hippo
From whence does goodness come? Can you prove that justice and rightness exist? Why should I not steal all your belongings or slander your name in order to further my career. These are the same sorts of categories which are difficult to prove and their existence is based on acceptance more often than of proof.
Hmm, good point, I know there must be a counter to it, but can't think of it at the moment. :p It depends on society, whereas God is an overall concept that doesn't differ (in one religion, naturally across relgions it does). Apart from that the very nature of God is a contradiction, there is still no proof that God exists, although people can interpret it as proof. Morals/Ethics, are more principles (than concepts) and change over time.
 
Stumbling block

Morals/Ethics, are more principles (than concepts) and change over time.
I do not agree...would you say that at any time in history that it has been moral to rape an infant? I am using an extreme example to make the point.
 
Originally posted by hippo
I am using an extreme example to make the point.
I know, I'll use a non-extreme one. :p Only last century it was totally acceptable/ethical to use black people (no racism intended) as slaves, but now, well, it's against the law.
 
not at the root

Only last century it was totally acceptable/ethical to use black people (no racism intended) as slaves, but now, well, it's against the law.
Aha, but it wasn't. US Society may have allowed an unethical practice to be protected by law, but it was unethical/immoral at the root. This was the basis of the Abolition movement. Other countries which banned slavery decades or centuries before arrived at the same conclusion, that the inherent dignity of all human beings was an 'inalienable right' a moral absolute which was incompatible with slavery. The tide of history shows that, thankfully, the followers of the moral absolute won in the US[though the injury to the blacks is still not over.]
If you say that morality is based on the laws of society, then slavery has every right to return if the majority can change the laws of the country. If the absolute immorality of slavery is an eternal unchanging predicate[I think I can use that term] them laws contrary to them are in error and need to be changed to abide by the good.

hippo
 
Didn't quite follow you there, but I'm just saying, I think there is a difference between the idea of God, and the idea of (for example) the "rightfulness" of slavery. That changed over time, it was once perfectly acceptable, there are still people who consider anybody not of their ethical background somehow 'inferior', whereas the idea of God has been pretty much the same for the last 2000 years.
 
Back
Top