Why should there have been anything first? What was there before God? Why does life have to have a "meaning"? Morals aren't pointless if there were no God. Morals help people be kind to other people. Why would be need a higher power to make that clear?
Without god, I would have no morals? already debunked by the videos above me... What is the grand purpose of life without God? I don't see how believing in God would change how pointless life is. EDITED BY KALALIFICATION IN ORDER TO FIX QUOTE
Why do people keep bringing science into this? Science wants nothing to do with religion! It can't do anything with religion! We've already established why the problem of evil/Epicurean theorem are false, using logic. We've also established that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of atheists and theists, not agnostics, using logic. Notice a trend here? The only non-religious tool that can analyze religion (as far as I know anyways) is logic. Logic isn't at all the end-all-be-all tool for determining reality, since it can't establish accurate claims. It can show you only one thing: what the simplest and most obvious explanation for an event/concept is, given the context of either the "base-plate" reality or of the system you analyze/your choosing. From the theistic and atheistic perspectives (within that context, that is), both systems are logical. From the "base-plate" reality they are illogical. No other claims can be absolutely made about theism or atheism because they both make claims outside the boundaries of science to verify, which leaves only logic. Logic is not a terribly good tool because all it does is verify internal consistency, not make absolute claims (except the aforementioned). There is a reason that we switched over to the Scientific Method when it came to determining the natural state of the world; logical conclusions aren't necessarily accurate conclusions. In summation, please, for God/SCIENCE!/FSM's sake, don't try to use science or "logic" to make a point that simply can't be backed up. That means no creationist nonsense and no Epicurean nonsense, as well as all of the other super-common and super-stupid arguments made by either side.
I propose a question to see where you stand on the debate, philosophically speaking. Can something exist outside of time and space? I ask because I am a nominalist, and I do not believe in universals existing anywhere but in our minds. I'm supposing that you must be of the platonic formist mindset.
Depends on what you mean by 'exist.' It would likely be impossible to perceive, and thus according to you it wouldn't exist. But simply debating its existence should give a substance; personally I think that there are specific rules that govern everything in existence, but that sometimes those rules can be bent or even broken. Not just in the sense that we can't explain everything with the Standard Model, but that even given absolutes, some variation (or, hell, a LOT of variation) can occur. Why? Nothing stands in its way but what's happened in the past. And more than anything we know, we know that the past isn't a great predictor of the future. But then the problem of time comes up. Time is by its nature something we perceive, and existence is usually defined by what we can possibly perceive. If something 'exists' outside of time then it exists outside of perception. Practically speaking this means that nothing should exist outside of time. I'm not so keen on our, or any being's, ability to perceive all that 'exists.' God, being omniscient, overrides that restriction. And God is the only thing we can perceive that can do so. That brings us to the divide about whether or not God exists, because God Himself is generally understood to exist outside of time and space. Fundamentally, then, there isn't a purely objective answer that can be discerned here. It's a matter of personal belief, because it's a question of personal belief. I believe that there is something(s) that exist outside of time. Is there any direct evidence that points to that conclusion? No. But there is none for the opposition either. Questioning anything outside of perception is bound to give you more questions and no answers. But I don't think that removes the purpose of doing so; on the contrary there's nary any subject of debate that's more human.
A few questions. Your first line seems to be blatantly contradictory; a belief in specific rules that govern everything, yet can be broken or bent? Would that not make them the opposite of rules? Please explain what your main point in this first paragraph here is; a large amount of theories are brought up, but not all of them appear to be relevant. For example, the standard model, from my understanding is particle physics theory that led to some important discoveries at a subatomic level (I'll be honest, I just looked this up, and was unable to understand any of it). The next part, debating yourself about absolutes existing, seems to point to a belief in absolutes (forms), yet you adequately state that this is flawed since there are variations of absolutes, and you don't actually state whether or not you think absolutes exist. The last line is a big leap; I think it is stating that scientific models cannot predict variations in the future as we can never be sure whether it is theory or fact that we base our logic on. I think this ties back to your anti-epicurean logic argument, yet I can't be sure. This seems to point to your belief in God existing outside of time, yet at the same time, in your own words, practically: nothing can exist outside of time. I think your stating in the middle that humans cannot possibly learn everything in the known universe. As a nominalist, this is in direct contradiction to my world view that all the rules of the universe are learn-able (although perhaps, not by any single mortal, but as a collective). Also, how does a person "perceive" God? I haven't, or I wouldn't be an atheist. I brought up Platonics merely as a beginning to a much more deep and meaningful debate than for you to reach your conclusion already, friend . We shall go on a Journey, to discover your philosophical view of the world, and perhaps I can prove a case of cognitive dissonance, or at worst, end up where we started, with neither of us able to prove the other wrong. When I finished reading this, I was unsure of whether you believed in objects outside of time and space. My best guess is that you believe in a God outside of time and space, but I'm not sure this is correct. I was hoping you could state more clearly your metaphysical view of the world.
I think a better term would be guidelines, in that they are normally followed but aren't always so. The thing is that we can't make 100% accurate claims about anything, let alone the future, so it's very difficult for me to think that what we've seen occur forms the basis of what always occurs. The point of the standard model is that it attempts (we realize now that it doesn't succeed) to describe a universal theory of particle behavior. Understanding particle behavior is the key to understanding macro- behavior, and thus the universe. What I was saying is that I don't just believe that we can't yet explain everything, I believe that we can never explain everything, even if we did have a complete model. I didn't mean to imply that I think there are absolutes at all; I'm about as anti-absolute as you can get. What I was trying to say is that even if we believe there are universal certainties, we cannot guarantee that those certainties are certainties at all. Nothing can prevent the rules (er, guidelines) of the universe from randomly changing at any moment. We just rely on our past knowledge that things will remain stable, and that our beliefs will remain true. It's entirely possible that all of this is just a construct of our collective unconscious, that we can't accept a totally random reality and so we only accept what makes sense (or can be revealed) to us. Personally I think that's all nonsense. But the problem is that there is no way to guarantee that that's the case, or that our rules will at all remain true. Why then, should we put absolute faith in them? The difference here is that God is a perceivable entity; that is we can take our sensory information and create a conscious thought about what God is. Things that are not perceivable to us (not only outside our knowledge, but outside our ability to consciously think about) don't really exist in the conventional meaning of the term. But God is an omniscient entity, and would thus be able to know all things that exist, not only what we can perceive, but everything possibly knowable. If there is anything else that exists outside of time that we can perceive, then time is not the crucial point at which something is in existence (though it sure doesn't leave a lot of room for it). I liken it to the situation regarding imaginary numbers, where only one thing actual exists on that entire plane (i), but something does exist there. As stated above, I find it absolutely impossible to believe that we can know everything. Everything is susceptible to sudden, un-explainable change at any moment. We might be right 99.99% of the time, but we can't be right 100% of the time. This becomes far more apparent at the micro scale, where literally random events happen, and cannot be explained. Not to mention the ages old unsolvable problems/unanswerable questions. I use the term perception in the psychological sense: what we 'know' to be thanks to our sensory information and conscious thought. I don't mean 'experience,' or 'feel,' or anything like that. I think the answer to this question is that God exists outside of space-time, but is obviously free to act in space-time. Perhaps this is true of all entities that exist outside of space-time, but it's hard to say and impossible to know. EDIT: About Epicurus [spoiler:10g3ayql]The logic I use to invalidate the Epicurean problem/problem of evil is simple. Logic only works because it accepts certain parameters. Epicurus accepted the parameters of God being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He also accepted parameters such as the existence of evil, and the ability to prevent evil. But there is simply no need for him to bother with anything beyond the basic parameters which describe the existence of God. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-caring, and God has created the universe, then He has created the perfect universe for optimizing good. I don't understand how any other conclusion can possibly result, since we accept the parameters that define God's nature.[/spoiler:10g3ayql]
Modifying the quotes so that I can form a reasonable dialogue is going to be a pain in the ass... perhaps tomorrow or Tuesday I will put together a rebuttal. I would like to state in your Epicurean solution, you are accepting the fact that god has optimized good. I don't believe he has. Following your logic, which is valid, yes, the epicurean solution gives conditionals that must be accepted as fact. I believe the point of the quote is this: Anyone can see evil in the world, but there is a God, so why does evil exist? Doesn't that mean that he must have created evil as well as good? To me, all of this proves the absurdity of a benevolent God, but perhaps it is less persuasive to you. Also, the sub point. Why call him God if he does nothing? Does god actually do anything? What does God actually do?
I'll throw in extra spaces between the segments; I usually like to keep the text compact but I can see how that'd be a pain to respond to. It's the same exact parameters that Epicurus laid out. The only difference is in the conclusion... Epicurus ignored his own parameters, because there is only one conclusion that meets them. Really all that stops people from readily accepting that conclusion is that they are too focused on emotions to see the logic. 'Evil' as you put it is obviously necessary for the optimally good universe, or else it wouldn't exist. That's the whole point here, if we accept God to be perfect (and have created the universe) then the universe is perfect. As I've stated in this topic before, I don't think that there is an absolute moral code by which God would judge by, and thus there really isn't any 'evil' aside from hypocrisy. If we give people free will and they go against their own moral code it's not possible to shove that burden on God. But the optimally good universe obviously includes free will, and thus includes the hypocrisy that can result from it. I can't give you specific instances of God's actions, and if I could then this whole debate would be moot. I believe that God created and monitors the universe, as well as deals with us when we die. Does God cause hurricanes and earthquakes? Well as far as I know solar winds and tectonic shifting cause them. Has God healed people on the Earth? I think that strong faith in God can lead to a euphoria that releases endorphins and relieves pain. Whether or not you want to attribute all of this to God or not is up to you; personally I find the whole situation reminiscent of the 'fate' vs. 'freedom' debate. If you're in the 'fate' camp, do you have any less control over what you do than people in the 'freedom' camp? We can't know the future, so whether or not you believe in 'fate,' 'destiny,' or 'God's plan' doesn't really matter. We're all still responsible for our actions and free will is the direct equivalent to the perception of free will.
I find no evidence of a God and therefore do not have proof that one exists. Although I am not religious, I acknowledge the tremendous impact it has had on Humans and their history. Good and bad.
Atheism: the lack of belief in a god. Antitheism: the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism: the belief that no-one can know whether there is a god. Everyone who does not actively believe in a god is an atheist. I'd argue that most people are agnostics unless they are crazy fundamentalists. Remember at birth everyone is an atheist, it is the theist who has the burden of proof. I hope people will stop getting hung up on the definitions of words.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/382819/april-26-2011/a-c--grayling Thought this was relevant, so decided to post it. Basically, the gist of it is; without God where does human morality and ethics stem from. Stephen Colbert satirically argues that without a God, there is no morality. He actually does bring up the main argument supporting morality stemming from God being that without a God or at the very least, a belief in absolutes, there is no 'perfect' morality. My next philosophical argument was going to stem from the belief of morality and ethics stemming from a sort of group think mentality, sort of like wolves hunting in packs. The betterment of the whole from the sacrifices of the few. I will phrase this better when I'm a little less preoccupied, just thought it would be interesting to get a first impression.
Absolute morality only makes sense if there is a guaranteed absolute, i.e. God, but I'm no advocate of absolute morality. Personally I don't think absolute morality makes sense even if we accept the existence of God, because how can one consider the actions of someone who honestly believes them to be righteous as anything but?
Let's take the morality of someone in the KKK. I'm sure some of them actually believe they are superior to the other races; does that make their cause righteous. I am more skeptical in my definition. My definition of a positive moral decision is it benefiting the community of all people affected by that decision.
I've tried to tell others on here about that, but they don't listen to me I guess. So does this mean that people who say that their religion is Atheism, are they kinda dumb? Or just ignorant? Or am I?
Your example more or less proves the absurdity of absolute moral systems. But as to the morality of that belief, I don't think it's possible to call into question the righteousness of their belief. If someone honestly believes that what they are doing is right, then we can't fault them for it. Sure, from our perspective it's not moral at all, but insofar as God would be concerned I believe what matters is whether or not the person did what they thought was right. You really can't ask any more of someone than to do what they think is right anyways.
religon is like... how am i gona put this in a way people on the fourm won't mis interprate this leading into a long debate.
