GOD EXISTS

The E wrote:That's not really how statistics work. The possibility of a thing existing has nothing to do with that thing actually existing.

There's also the small fact that it is impossible to say how likely the (existence) of a deity is, despite what you, cthia, or anyone else says.

That is exactly how statistics work. If I have only a 1% (that’s 1 out of 100) chance of succeeding, and try 1000 times then I’ll succeed about 10 times. If I try 1 trillion times then I will succeed 10 billion times. If I try an infinite number of times then I will succeed an infinite number of times (though I will fail an infinite number of times as well). Though you are right that we don’t have an exact statistic on the exact probability, but neither do you have an exact disproof to make the probability absolute 0.

The E wrote:You're saying that god can't have sinned "because we know this isn't the case". But, do we? ...neither would I trust the followers of a religion to be objective about whatever they're worshipping.

No I didn’t, Yes we do know. God is who determines what IS sin. He defines what is sin and is, by definition without sin. Stating that he could be sinful (not that someone else implied it) is Blasphemy (good luck with that). I agree that followers can lie for their own purpose but that is not the case here.

MAD-4A wrote:That is exactly how statistics work. If I have only a 1% (that’s 1 out of 100) chance of succeeding, and try 1000 times then I’ll succeed about 10 times. If I try 1 trillion times then I will succeed 10 billion times. If I try an infinite number of times then I will succeed an infinite number of times (though I will fail an infinite number of times as well). Though you are right that we don’t have an exact statistic on the exact probability, but neither do you have an exact disproof to make the probability absolute 0.

The probability of a 6-sided die to roll a 6 is 1 in 6. Does that mean that if I roll a die 6 times, I am guaranteed to see a 6? No. Does it mean that if I roll the die a million times, I am guaranteed to see a 6? Again, no. You're very certain to, sure. But there is no guarantee; and in any case, if there's a probability value for god's existance, what exactly makes you so certain that you're in one of the universes where a god exists?

No I didn’t, Yes we do know. God is who determines what IS sin. He defines what is sin and is, by definition without sin. Stating that he could be sinful (not that someone else implied it) is Blasphemy (good luck with that). I agree that followers can lie for their own purpose but that is not the case here.

Right. God cannot sin because god defines what sin is. Why does god get away with such bullshit? Why do you use an immoral actor's decrees to define your morality?

The E wrote:

No I didn’t, Yes we do know. God is who determines what IS sin. He defines what is sin and is, by definition without sin. Stating that he could be sinful (not that someone else implied it) is Blasphemy (good luck with that). I agree that followers can lie for their own purpose but that is not the case here.

Right. God cannot sin because god defines what sin is. Why does god get away with such bullshit? Why do you use an immoral actor's decrees to define your morality?

Because your logic asserts that morality is independent from God. That means morality is objective and has an essence beyond God. Should God the Creator exist, he creates everything, including morality. That means morality does not exist without God. In other words by creating morality he defines it.

In a universe without a creator god, morality is defined by limited minds not an omniscient one. That means morality is subjective. Two competing moralities have no objective arbiter for which is "better" because all points of view are subjective. The only objective means of persuasion is the use of force to compel adoption of a moral code. Baring compulsion, no argument can overcome the position that "this is what I believe to be right".

Insisting as you do that the Creator of Everything cannot create morality is a bit silly.

PeterZ wrote:In a universe without a creator god, morality is defined by limited minds not an omniscient one. That means morality is subjective. Two competing moralities have no objective arbiter for which is "better" because all points of view are subjective. The only objective means of persuasion is the use of force to compel adoption of a moral code. Baring compulsion, no argument can overcome the position that "this is what I believe to be right".

Sounds an awful lot like the real world to me.

The E wrote:what exactly makes you so certain that you're in one of the universes where a god exists?

God doesn't exist "in" a universe, he is beyond the "Universe"

The E wrote:God cannot sin because god defines what sin is. Why does god get away with such bullshit? Why do you use an immoral actor's decrees to define your morality?

what? are you claiming that God is some "immoral actor"? That discredits any other statement.

PeterZ wrote:Because your logic asserts that morality is independent from God. That means morality is objective and has an essence beyond God. Should God the Creator exist, he creates everything, including morality. That means morality does not exist without God. In other words by creating morality he defines it.
…. Baring compulsion, no argument can overcome the position that "this is what I believe to be right". Insisting as you do that the Creator of Everything cannot create morality is a bit silly.

Right - you ("E") are claiming that you know better morality than God (the omnipotent being over the universe)?

The E wrote:Sounds an awful lot like the real world to me.

No - the arbitrary world of MAN.

MAD-4A wrote:

The E wrote:what exactly makes you so certain that you're in one of the universes where a god exists?

God doesn't exist "in" a universe, he is beyond the "Universe"

As you've stated previously. Now please define how an actor outside of the universe can affect anything inside it. Do take care to include a proof of such effects.

what? are you claiming that God is some "immoral actor"? That discredits any other statement.

You define moral behaviour as "whatever god does". That, I submit to you, is not a good definition, as it gives god carte blanche to do whatever he likes, and have it defined as moral by default. Therefore, no actual rules govern his behaviour, therefore he is not a moral actor in the same sense that he expects his believers to be.

Right - you ("E") are claiming that you know better morality than God (the omnipotent being over the universe)?

Yes, actually. I know what my morals are. I know what shaped them. I know what the society I live in defines as moral behaviour, and I know what shaped those definitions. If I happened to meet a person claiming to follow an entirely self-created morality, based upon the axiom that any behaviour of said person is moral, I'd probably make a swift exit, cos lunatics like that generally aren't good company.

The E wrote:Sounds an awful lot like the real world to me.

No - the arbitrary world of MAN.

[/quote]

Which does happen to be the world I inhabit. Look, I'd love to live in a world in which there is an absolute arbitrator of morality. Unfortunately, there isn't one. There's just more humans trying to get through their lives with their consciences intact. Some of whom I agree with. Some, I don't. Point is, I am not so deluded as to believe that my particular morality is inspired by some deity that has handed down the One True Law for all mankind, which everyone has to follow on pain of eternal torment.

MAD-4A wrote:

The E wrote:Sounds an awful lot like the real world to me.

No - the arbitrary world of MAN.

I have to agree with The E on this. Might makes Right does indeed describe much of our world.
And yet....Yes, the great "and yet..."

And yet man strives so hard and diligently to create objectivity in a subjective world. We value ideas such as justice and fairness. If objectivity doesn't exist in this universe, why do we crave it so? Is the idea of objectivity so natural to the human condition that human society strives to incorporate it? If that's true, why?Absent God, objectivity is as foreign to the human condition as breathing in a vacuum. And yet we seek it.

Perhaps we seek it because we know it exists deep in our souls and long for it. Secular societies embrace objective ideals such as justice and fairness to guide their governments. Without those objective ideals, government becomes an exercise in dominance and the monopolization of force.

Doesn't that longing argue for our recognition of an objective point of view or perspective, an objective God? I believe it does.

I lost my religion while still a child at a strict religious boarding school. It had been at risk for some time because I couldn't equate the sadistic behavior of the brothers with their preaching about love and forgiveness.
The pivotal point was their explanation of how forced conversions by their missionaries was justified because even if a pagan was a really good person they would burn in hell for eternity if they weren't baptized.

I know that they were people not little copies of their god, and I shouldn't judge a whole religion because of their actions, but it made me into a cynical questioner.

Some things just seem right or wrong to me; so when churches condemn gay marriage or innocent people just doing their own thing, yet seem not to have a problem with being money grubbing bigots themselves, I don't want anything to do with their belief or values.

As to "claiming that you know better morality than God (the omnipotent being over the universe)?", guilty as charged because I don't believe that, in the unlikely situation that here is such a being, those espousing any one of the thousands of religions have a clue about what her values are.

PeterZ wrote:Doesn't that longing argue for our recognition of an objective point of view or perspective, an objective God? I believe it does.

I don't think "god" is necessary for this argument. There's a desire in many of us to find something to believe in that is absolutely true and absolutely good, yes, but the existence of that desire does not mean that something that can fulfill this desire actually exists.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Doesn't that longing argue for our recognition of an objective point of view or perspective, an objective God? I believe it does.

I don't think "god" is necessary for this argument. There's a desire in many of us to find something to believe in that is absolutely true and absolutely good, yes, but the existence of that desire does not mean that something that can fulfill this desire actually exists.

I guess that's my point. Why would we long for it as an ideal if the concept is so absolutely foreign to our existence? Assuming that you are right, God does not exist. The universe developed through chance. There is no guiding hand/thought/mind. As a product of that development process, humans would be shaped by it and adapt their thinking to be congruent with what shaped us. A true objective POV would be as alien as vacuum. Yet all of us seek it in one form or another.

Big government progressives seek to place government as the arbiter of the myriad subjective POVs in society. Philosophers seek that objective truth, whether in the form of God or simply a core idea that is true for all men. The religious seek God. In everyday life we all seek to bridge the gap between each other, language to connect one discrete mind to another.

At our core we humans are social beings separated into discrete consciousness. We have developed imperfect tools to bridge that gap, but we can never feel and think what others do. Our experiences are ours and ours alone. Why attempt to bridge the chasm of consciousness? Pre-intelligent life has no purpose greater than procreation, absent God. Why use whatever growing intellect organisms had into the direction of bridging isolation? What advantage is there in developing into something that does not exist and is alien to environment in which organisms develop?

Yes, cooperation multiplies the resources of many to one purpose. Yet cooperation is movement towards something greater than the purely subjective. Mankind has moved to develop every greater objectivity and with every development greater rewards come from those efforts. The way we organize society and the conventions we develop to interact with each other have improved over time just as man's accomplishments have grown. How can this be if true objectivity is so foreign to existence? Its almost as though even the lessons of this subjective existence moves us all towards that which is absolutely objective. I have been persuaded that there is true objectivity to be discovered. It only remains to discover it or perhaps phrased better to allow it to rediscover you.