GunnerJ

Jumping in later, but the vagueness of the "god concept" is one of the resons I don't self identify myself as an atheist anymore. It seems logical to me that the only proper response to the question "Do you believe in god?" is "What is god?"

Jobar

The famous Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz coined the term "igtheist"- from ignorance of god(s). An equivalent term is 'non-cognitivist'.

I have said often that in my experience modding this forum, I have never seen two theists who have given the same definition of God. Sometimes the broad outlines seem very similar, but when details start to be hashed out the disagreements begin. Is God singular, or triune? Is he omnibenevolent or just benevolent? Is faith in His existence all that is required to make Him happy, or are good works among human beings the key to heaven?

For this reason, we seldom see two theists who support each others' arguments effectively- unlike the unbelievers who seem to assist each other like a well drilled team, with only occasional minor quibbles over small semantical or philosophical points.

This thread is an excellent case in point. Look at the posts of smalltown, Eric, the_cave, and Christopher13. Do those posts seem to be in any way cohesive and mutually supporting? Or as wildly different as the preaching of the itinerant prophets in Monty Python's Life of Bryan?

I am always reminded of the famous line from the Tao Te Ching- "Looked for, it cannot be seen. Felt for, it cannot be touched. Listened for, it cannot be heard."

And obviously, when spoken of, it cannot be described.

Keith Russell

smalltown, even people who believe in 'God', do not agree completely about which actions are moral, and which are not--about what 'good' is, and what 'evil' is.

On top of that, they don't even agree about the nature of 'God' 'Himself'. Christians claim that Muslims aren't worshipping the same 'God', many Buddhists don't worship a 'God' at all, and the Jews claim that at least one of the apsects attributed to 'god' by Christians, aren't attributes of 'God' at all (the whole 'Son' thing...)

So, the belief in 'God' in no way makes 'God' an absolute, let alone making 'morality' absolute.

nice try, though...

Keith.

HRG

OTOH, I would like to know on what reasons people think that "greater" is objectively defined, and a linear order.

Was Bach greater than Newton, or Newton greater than Bach ? On which objective basis would we support the one over the other ?

Or even within the same field: was Beethoven greater than Bach, or vice versa ?

Is a god who creates a universe which runs like clockwork and needs no intervention greater than a god who intervenes daily in the universe (for the best reasons, of course) ?

Objective, for a topic which is absolutely replete with personal evaluations and preferences ? I very much doubt it.

Regards,
HRG.

Hawkingfan

I don't think that the definition of "good" varies, but what people consider to be "good". I find it hard to believe that everyone would agree what qualifies as good and what does not. Is homosexuality "good"? I think it is. But Christians do not. Is abortion "good"? I think it is. But Christians do not.
What one person qualifies as "greatest" will vary from what another person qualifies as "greatest".
No. I'm saying that we do not owe anybody anything simply because he created us. He wasn't doing anybody any favors. It also depends on who the person is. It could also depend on if you pre-suppose a god. If there was a god, and the ultimate pupose was to be with him for eternity, worshipping him, then it would be better not to be born, imo.
Children are created when a man's sperm fertilizes a woman's egg.
Being of a different ethnicity does not qualify someone as being my enemy. I clearly said an enemy is someone who wants to do me harm.
Is there a "b"?
"hoping that their punishment effects a change in their character" is hate, not love. Why do you sugar-coat it by calling it "love". It's not going to do any good by "hoping". It will do much better by acting upon it physically.
No, I don't have a quantum theory of gravity. You can read a book on astrophysics to find out the current theories on how the universe came to be (split seconds after the big bang). But I don't think you'll find them saying god had a hand in it.
That's a shame. The reason life exists is from chance operations in QM. There is no "purpose" behind chance.

Mageth

smalltown:

If evolution is true, then there is no good and evil. It is all relative.

What does evolution being true (which it is) have to do with the existence of good and evil? Many theists accept the fact of evolution. Good and evil exist as constructs of the human mind, of the complex societies we live in. And yes, good and evil are relative; looking at history will show you that.

The Big Bang was a neutral event (it can't be defined as good or bad) the first microorganisms were neutral (again it can't be defined as good or bad),

From my viewpoint, both events were quite good!

therefore since everything evolved from neutrality, good and evil do not exist

A false conclusion, since the concepts of good and evil obviously do exist in the minds of us humans.

and each person is free to choose what they decide is the best course for human endeavor (becoming a doctor or a murderer),

Obviously, this is true even if evolution is false and the particular brand of theism you believe in is true, unless you don't believe in "free will."

since at the end of their life that is it anyway, there is no heaven or hell.

Yep, you got that right; no heaven or hell. But while living, one might want to make the best of it in the society we've created. Following society's rules makes that task that much easier.

Note: if you go to a prison and poll the prisoners, I would bet that most of them had at least some belief in hell when doin' the crime; apparently, hell is not a particularly good deterrent.

And humanity goes forward with everyone being "God" since there is no good and evil or A God to answer too.

I don't believe in god, and I certainly don't consider myself a god. I'm one person among many, a part of a larger society, even a world. I generally try to live by society's rules, and indeed have an internal sense of "good and evil", relative though it may be, practice self-control, and don't go about murdering anyone or committing any other major crimes (I occasionally exceed the speed limit and such, but I bet you do such "little crimes" as well).

My moral sense is based on the Golden Rule. To maximize my happiness, it's best I recognize that others have the same goal (and privilege), and don't go about hurting others and thus reducing their happiness. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Even babboons have this much moral sense.

I cannot accept this, I believe that in all of us there is either a desire to do good or evil, and we know what they are.

Show me someone, anyone, who does only good or only evil. There is no such person. Things are a lot more complex than you think.

The reason we do is because there is a higher power, and that higher power has made good relative and evil relative as well.

Hold on, I thought "relative" was a bad thing. Did you misspeak?

I believe the choices we make in this lifetime have eternal consequences, if I murder someone and cause that family grief and suffering, their will be accountability beyond this life.

So hope for eternal revenge is "good"? You think anyone suffering for eternity for what they've done here on earth is "accountability"? I studied accounting a bit; the books are supposed to balance.

If I say something to hurt your feelings, what do I care if there is no heaven or hell, I will just go on hurting everyones feelings.

So someone who, as his most evil act, hurts someone else's feelings is going to suffer the same eternal fate as the murderer?

AFAIK there's no heaven or hell, I don't long for or fear either, and I don't go about hurting everyone's feelings for no reason.

However if I am accountable for the way I treat people beyond this life it makes a radical differnece in approach.

Being accountable in this life for what you do seems to be a more moral approach to me. If you really found out there was no heaven or hell, do you think you'd suddenly turn into a mass-murdering, feelings-hurting fiend? Don't worry, I didn't; you won't have to either.

Further, if you believe the classical xian way, then someone can do evil for their entire lifetime and have a heartfelt "deathbed confsession" and, by praying a few words, escape all that accountability. Meanwhile, the atheist in the next room, having live a good, philanthropic life, doing their best to live by the golden rule, but who dies without being "saved" gets an eternal dose of hell. Sheesh, makes a lot of sense to me.

This is why I believe in God because there is good and evil and actions are accoutnable beyond this life.

When you're a child, the Principle's office and the fear of discipline if you act out in the classroom serves a purpose. When you become an adult, generally you're expected to learn to control your own actions without fear of punishment. Our law and penal systems are primarily for people that fail to learn this lesson.

Mad Kally's Principle:
God is Santa for adults.

Mageth's Corollary:
Hell is the Principle's Office for adults.

Eric H

Hello Keith.


---------------------------------------
Quote Keith
So, the belief in 'God' in no way makes 'God' an absolute, let alone making 'morality' absolute.
------------------------------------------------

Possibly we have this question wrong, if and only if God exists then he must be very real.

So if he exists he must have very real qualities, and if he exists then it seems humanity is making a real mess.

Anyone who reads the Bible can interpret it in many ways, and hence we have hundreds or possibly thousands of Christian religions, plus we have thousands of non-Christian religions.

My thoughts are if God exists then he is not vague, it is humanity that is vague about God, me included.

Peace

Eric

Hawkingfan

Yes, they are called the Fundamental Qualities of Science (a physics term). God possesses none of them, BTW. You have to have at least some of them in order to exist.
If god exists, he *should not* be vague. It is god who is vague, not humanity.

Pyrrho

Beastmaster states:

So you imagine in makes sense to speak of round squares and other self-contradictions, as if they signified an actual object? And that we can reasonably wonder whether or not such “things” exist?


Smalltown states:

So you are saying that God has changed his mind about how he should deal with us? Is that because God made a mistake, and is now dealing with us differently? Or are you saying that God is simply unfair, as he chose to deal with some according to one set of standards, and with others according to different standards?


Smalltown states:

But, according to the Old Testament, most of them never saw God at all. Only a select few supposedly saw God, and that was often with them being alone, and they claimed to have seen God when there were no other witnesses present (e.g., Moses getting the 10 commandments from God, etc.). Now, I ask you, when some guy goes off by himself and claims to speak with God, and this God refuses to show himself to you, are you going to accept this? If so, you should accept Muhammad as a true prophet of God.

As for your concerns about ethics, I refer you to another thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=47293

beastmaster

You're right -- it doesn't "make sense." That's the point: if god "made sense" then he wouldn't be god.

For the sake of argument, I accept the irrationality of god.

I think we can infer whether such things exist or not with something less than a definition that "makes sense."

I think there are plenty of reasons to infer that god does not exist without having to speculate on the nature of god.