Arguments in favour of the existence of God

John Hutton

Everyone has a different journey to make regarding God, and He speaks to us and makes His presence known to each individual in different ways.

Personally, the exciting road I am on started off when I became truly open to the idea of the existence of "a" God. Before this I was a lapsed Catholic, probably agnostic if not atheist, only "resorting" to my faith in desperate times of crisis. In many ways I was a victim of the prevailing idea that there were no rational, philosophical or otherwise, arguments for the existence of God, and that you could only believe in this type of thing if you were stupid, or denied science.

But having the hunger for the truth, I began to explore these things more deeply, and discovered that there are "rational" arguments for the existence of God. Once I became open to the idea and possibility, indeed probability, of "a" God existing, things have flowed from there and as times goes on and I explore the scriptures etc, my faith has grown. But this wouldn't have happened without getting over that first hurdle.

As one example, I found Aquinas' five ways helpful. But I am interested in what other "rational" (by this I mean knowledge and understanding gained outside of immediate personal encounters with God/Holy Spirit/Grace etc.) arguments posters here have found helpful, because I think these open the door (they have for me anyway). So please do share.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

Everyone has a different journey to make regarding God, and He speaks to us and makes His presence known to each individual in different ways.

Personally, the exciting road I am on started off when I became truly open to the idea of the existence of "a" God. Before this I was a lapsed Catholic, probably agnostic if not atheist, only "resorting" to my faith in desperate times of crisis. In many ways I was a victim of the prevailing idea that there were no rational, philosophical or otherwise, arguments for the existence of God, and that you could only believe in this type of thing if you were stupid, or denied science.

But having the hunger for the truth, I began to explore these things more deeply, and discovered that there are "rational" arguments for the existence of God. Once I became open to the idea and possibility, indeed probability, of "a" God existing, things have flowed from there and as times goes on and I explore the scriptures etc, my faith has grown. But this wouldn't have happened without getting over that first hurdle.

As one example, I found Aquinas' five ways helpful. But I am interested in what other "rational" (by this I mean knowledge and understanding gained outside of immediate personal encounters with God/Holy Spirit/Grace etc.) arguments posters here have found helpful, because I think these open the door (they have for me anyway). So please do share.

You didn't really start your journey as you say. You were well aware of the idea of God, it wasn't that it simply came to you. So you were not starting from an unbiased position.

But you don't have any evidence, just ideas. A 'could be' position.

But there are lots of other 'could be' positions that you don't mention as to why you have decided they cannot be.

And what type of God? The traditional Christian God, the old testament God, Jesus, or some other version?

Zookey123

Unfortunately we do not have the capacity to understand such topics. Trying to rationalize the existence of a god or an afterlife for a human is like an ant trying to rationalize how escalators work. At the end of the day no one knows and anyone who claims to know is either lying or delusional.

Kaybaykwah

John Hutton wrote: »

Everyone has a different journey to make regarding God, and He speaks to us and makes His presence known to each individual in different ways.

Personally, the exciting road I am on started off when I became truly open to the idea of the existence of "a" God. Before this I was a lapsed Catholic, probably agnostic if not atheist, only "resorting" to my faith in desperate times of crisis. In many ways I was a victim of the prevailing idea that there were no rational, philosophical or otherwise, arguments for the existence of God, and that you could only believe in this type of thing if you were stupid, or denied science.

But having the hunger for the truth, I began to explore these things more deeply, and discovered that there are "rational" arguments for the existence of God. Once I became open to the idea and possibility, indeed probability, of "a" God existing, things have flowed from there and as times goes on and I explore the scriptures etc, my faith has grown. But this wouldn't have happened without getting over that first hurdle.

As one example, I found Aquinas' five ways helpful. But I am interested in what other "rational" (by this I mean knowledge and understanding gained outside of immediate personal encounters with God/Holy Spirit/Grace etc.) arguments posters here have found helpful, because I think these open the door (they have for me anyway). So please do share.

That is the crux of it, though.

If you open your heart and your mind to religion, your acceptance of a scientific reasoning for the universe and its workings must be moot, at best.
The two paths are opposed, and irreconcilable.

John Hutton

One idea which I have been tossing around my head (very much a work in progress for me) is the concept of natural law and evil.

The materialist philosophy (which seems to be the prevailing one at present, or at least the one making the most waves) essentially holds that everything is the result of material interactions and that there is nothing higher. One manifestation we can see of this philosophy is the idea that things like gender are a social construct.

But it goes deeper too, when played out, materialism states that even things like our mental state, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, etc. are all a product and result of material interactions.

"Natural Law" supposes that there are certain laws that are intrinsic to human beings/nature and are universal. That is to say, they exist on a "higher plane" and are not a product of our material interactions. Extended further, we can say that there are acts that are evil now, were always evil, and will always be evil. If one subscribes to the "Natural Law" theory it must have a source, i.e something higher than our own conscience or faculty of reason, i.e. God. This also leads us nicely on to virtue ethics, but another time maybe.

Obviously, this concept of "natural law" is entirely incompatible with materialism.

So if we feel that morality stems from something more than our material interactions (if we feel that actual, true evil exists in our world, something I feel is self and instinctually obvious and evident) this would lead us towards the concept of natural law, and in turn the possible existence of something "higher", i.e. God.

John Hutton

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

That is the crux of it, though.

If you open your heart and your mind to religion, your acceptance of a scientific reasoning for the universe and its workings must be moot, at best.
The two paths are opposed, and irreconcilable.

How so?



I think science helps us understand the world better, and in turn God. I don't think they are incompatible.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

You didn't really start your journey as you say. You were well aware of the idea of God, it wasn't that it simply came to you. So you were not starting from an unbiased position.

But you don't have any evidence, just ideas. A 'could be' position.

But there are lots of other 'could be' positions that you don't mention as to why you have decided they cannot be.

And what type of God? The traditional Christian God, the old testament God, Jesus, or some other version?

I have to say I thought I'd get my first post on this thread out before people replied, didn't think there was that much traffic in this forum!

I don't think there is such a thing as a truly unbiased position, I think it's impossible.

A "could be" position is different than a "can't be" position. But I do feel that a lot of these "ideas" point towards the probability of the existence of God.

The "type" of God is skipping ahead !

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I have to say I thought I'd get my first post on this thread out before people replied, didn't think there was that much traffic in this forum!

I don't think there is such a thing as a truly unbiased position, I think it's impossible.

A "could be" position is different than a "can't be" position. But I do feel that a lot of these "ideas" point towards the probability of the existence of God.

The "type" of God is skipping ahead !

So what other ideas have you considered but set aside?

And if you don't know what type of god, isn't that just saying that you simply don't know, why place a label on that?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what other ideas have you considered but set aside?

And if you don't know what type of god, isn't that just saying that you simply don't know, why place a label on that?

I mentioned Aquinas' five ways, as an example, as they point towards the probability of the existence of something we understand as God. These type of arguments and ideas tend not to so much to point towards the space where something could be explained by the existence of God or a load of other ideas, but rather to space where the only satisfactory answer is God.

If you were to say that God exists but you are unsure of the nature of God, this is saying that God exists! Hence the basis for your understanding of the world must be based on this foundation.

Being unsure of the nature of God is not an argument against the existence of God.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I mentioned Aquinas' five ways, as an example, as they point towards the probability of the existence of something we understand as God. These type of arguments and ideas tend not to so much to point towards the space where something could be explained by the existence of God or a load of other ideas, but rather to space where the only satisfactory answer is God.

If you were to say that God exists but you are unsure of the nature of God, this is saying that God exists! Hence the basis for your understanding of the world must be based on this foundation.

Being unsure of the nature of God is not an argument against the existence of God.

But what is God, if you don't know what type of god. That is like saying you have a car, when its actually a bike, but you like to call it a car!

It appears you believe that there is something either controlling or responsible for everything, which you label as God, but have no idea what it is or what it does.

That makes discussing the evidence almost impossible as you have no actual position.

I asked what other ideas had you considered that you decided against that didn't include a god? Have you considered other religions? Have you read their scriptures?

Have you considered no god? That the universe just is? Have you considered that a god did indeed start the universe but has no impact or interest in its ongoing? Have you considered that a god exists, but we are no more important than we believe a dog is, and in fact the universe was created for s9me other life form?

Or that this is heaven, given that we can love, live, dream, and have a direct relationship with God?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is God, if you don't know what type of god. That is like saying you have a car, when its actually a bike, but you like to call it a car!

I don't agree with the analogy, but to take it on your terms, both are a method of transport.

It appears you believe that there is something either controlling or responsible for everything, which you label as God, but have no idea what it is or what it does.

The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God.

That makes discussing the evidence almost impossible as you have no actual position.

How does it? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start at the question of "does God exist" before deciding on the precise nature and characteristics of such a God.

I asked what other ideas had you considered that you decided against that didn't include a god? Have you considered other religions? Have you read their scriptures?

Have you considered no god? That the universe just is? Have you considered that a god did indeed start the universe but has no impact or interest in its ongoing? Have you considered that a god exists, but we are no more important than we believe a dog is, and in fact the universe was created for s9me other life form?

Or that this is heaven, given that we can love, live, dream, and have a direct relationship with God?

You are all over the place here, and missing the point of the thread. "Have I considered that a God exists", this is the first thing we must address.

Why don't you start with directly addressing Aquinas 5 ways (I am not saying these are the be all and end all but they are probably the most famous) as you seem to be saying that arguments such as these that put forward the existence of God can be addressed in the ways you outline?

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I don't agree with the analogy, but to take it on your terms, both are a method of transport.

Ok, change bike to toaster. Doesn't change the fact that you have no ability to describe what it is you say you believe in.

The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God.
How does it? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start at the question of "does God exist" before deciding on the precise nature and characteristics of such a God.


You are all over the place here, and missing the point of the thread. "Have I considered that a God exists", this is the first thing we must address.

Why don't you start with directly addressing Aquinas 5 ways (I am not saying these are the be all and end all but they are probably the most famous) as you seem to be saying that arguments such as these that put forward the existence of God can be addressed in the ways you outline?

"The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God. "

Ok, so what are your arguements for the existence of god? That is what I am trying to get to.

At least we now know it is the Christian God you believe in. So why not any of the other gods? What caused you to reject them? The god you believe in, one that acts on prayers, watches everything we do, can save certain people but not others. Can do miracles, but also not. Announces his existance by moving statues but refuses to make himself known because of free will?

So go with your best argument. So far its been that there there probably is. That's it.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask does god exist, but you apparently have already reached that conclusion, or maybe you haven't and I misunderstood your OP. If so, I apologise for the misunderstanding

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

"The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God. "

Ok, so what are your arguements for the existence of god? That is what I am trying to get to.

At least we now know it is the Christian God you believe in. So why not any of the other gods? What caused you to reject them? The god you believe in, one that acts on prayers, watches everything we do, can save certain people but not others. Can do miracles, but also not. Announces his existance by moving statues but refuses to make himself known because of free will?

So go with your best argument. So far its been that there there probably is. That's it.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask does god exist, but you apparently have already reached that conclusion, or maybe you haven't and I misunderstood your OP. If so, I apologise for the misunderstanding

I think you should review my posts again.

The precise nature of God is entirely separate from the question of whether God exists. You are insisting on skipping over this.

As or arguments, why not engage with Aquinas' five ways?

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

I think you should review my posts again.

The precise nature of God is entirely separate from the question of whether God exists. You are insisting on skipping over this.

As or arguments, why not engage with Aquinas' five ways?

How can you say something exists if you can't even describe what that something is.

Instead of god, why not call it 'something'? Why do you insist in putting a label, with such conataticions already attached to it?

But even allowing for this uncertain and non definined god, there is still no evidence. People have certainly put forward arguments in favour, some quite compelling, but none of them exclude other gods, or multiple gods, or any of the other questions that I asked.

"Aquinas' Five Ways are based ultimately on sense experience. Sense experience can never be infallible. Thus by themselves these arguments cannot establish the existence of God with complete certainty. However, should his arguments be valid, the existence of God would be an established fact on par with many of the discoveries of modern science.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the first three ways of Aquinas (collectively called The "Cosmological Arguments" [a]) as conclusive evidence for establishing the existence of God. [4] The Catholic Church notwithstanding, we will now proceed to examine for ourselves the validity of Aquinas' arguments.

We will now see how none of the five ways prove the existence of God:

* The First Way: God, the Prime Mover
* The Second Way: God, the First Cause
* The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being
* The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
* The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer "


https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html#:~:text=Thus Aquinas' five ways defined,aspects of the sensible world.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

How can you say something exists if you can't even describe what that something is.

Instead of god, why not call it 'something'? Why do you insist in putting a label, with such conataticions already attached to it?

But even allowing for this uncertain and non definined god, there is still no evidence. People have certainly put forward arguments in favour, some quite compelling, but none of them exclude other gods, or multiple gods, or any of the other questions that I asked.

"Aquinas' Five Ways are based ultimately on sense experience. Sense experience can never be infallible. Thus by themselves these arguments cannot establish the existence of God with complete certainty. However, should his arguments be valid, the existence of God would be an established fact on par with many of the discoveries of modern science.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the first three ways of Aquinas (collectively called The "Cosmological Arguments" [a]) as conclusive evidence for establishing the existence of God. [4] The Catholic Church notwithstanding, we will now proceed to examine for ourselves the validity of Aquinas' arguments.

We will now see how none of the five ways prove the existence of God:

* The First Way: God, the Prime Mover
* The Second Way: God, the First Cause
* The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being
* The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
* The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer "


https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html#:~:text=Thus%20Aquinas'%20five%20ways%20defined,aspects%20of%20the%20sensible%20world.

But they exclude there being no God.

What would you call it, if not God?

You seem determined to miss the point of this thread, or have a different conversation altogether.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

But they exclude there being no God.

What would you call it, if not God?

You seem determined to miss the point of this thread, or have a different conversation altogether.

I am not missing the point. You want to explore the evidence for god, or a god.

All I am asking for is a definition of what you would consider to be a god. What are the attributes of this god thing that you would want to see evidenced? How would you know that you have evidence of a god, if you cannot describe what a god is supposed to be?

It this god eternal? How could we demonstrate that?
If it omniscient? How do we show that?
Is it a single entity or a collective? Is the collective of one mind or different minds?
Is it consistent across the universe or individual to our part of it and changes in other parts?

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to define what god is?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not missing the point. You want to explore the evidence for god, or a god.

All I am asking for is a definition of what you would consider to be a god. What are the attributes of this god thing that you would want to see evidenced? How would you know that you have evidence of a god, if you cannot describe what a god is supposed to be?

It this god eternal? How could we demonstrate that?
If it omniscient? How do we show that?
Is it a single entity or a collective? Is the collective of one mind or different minds?
Is it consistent across the universe or individual to our part of it and changes in other parts?

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to define what god is?

I want to explore rational arguments for the existence of God. The "evidence" is the logic of the argument.

Aquinas five ways point towards the existence of something which we understand to be God.

Should there be such a thing it is not unreasonable to, as Aquinas does (although he gives us 8 attributes), say that we cannot and are incapable of understanding the complete and precise nature of God (in the Earthly phase of our life at least ).

But if you insist on a definition, a general one could could be a "supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe, source of all moral authority" (I have plucked a few quotes here from the dictionary, they are not my words).

By skipping ahead as you are, you are setting the table to discredit the existence of a certain God, rather than discredit the fundamental existence of God which is what we need to discuss first.

biko

George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, in the 18th century, had a novel and "convincing" argument for God's existence as the cause of our sensory ideas. You might want to read up on that OP.

indioblack

John Hutton wrote: »

I want to explore rational arguments for the existence of God. The "evidence" is the logic of the argument.

Aquinas five ways point towards the existence of something which we understand to be God.

Should there be such a thing it is not unreasonable to, as Aquinas does (although he gives us 8 attributes), say that we cannot and are incapable of understanding the complete and precise nature of God (in the Earthly phase of our life at least ).

But if you insist on a definition, a general one could could be a "supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe, source of all moral authority" (I have plucked a few quotes here from the dictionary, they are not my words).

By skipping ahead as you are, you are setting the table to discredit the existence of a certain God, rather than discredit the fundamental existence of God which is what we need to discuss first.

I'm not sure that it's possible to consider arguments for the existence of God without rapidly seeking definitions of what this being might be.
Do you want, need or sense that there is a God? You would then need to consider these effects, how they arise, their cause and the reason for them.
This would require delving into one aspect of this, which I would want as a starting point, and that is reality - or "reality" [!].

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

One idea which I have been tossing around my head (very much a work in progress for me) is the concept of natural law and evil.

The materialist philosophy (which seems to be the prevailing one at present, or at least the one making the most waves) essentially holds that everything is the result of material interactions and that there is nothing higher. One manifestation we can see of this philosophy is the idea that things like gender are a social construct.

But it goes deeper too, when played out, materialism states that even things like our mental state, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, etc. are all a product and result of material interactions.

"Natural Law" supposes that there are certain laws that are intrinsic to human beings/nature and are universal. That is to say, they exist on a "higher plane" and are not a product of our material interactions. Extended further, we can say that there are acts that are evil now, were always evil, and will always be evil. If one subscribes to the "Natural Law" theory it must have a source, i.e something higher than our own conscience or faculty of reason, i.e. God. This also leads us nicely on to virtue ethics, but another time maybe.

Obviously, this concept of "natural law" is entirely incompatible with materialism.

Could you give an example of such a natural law which is intrinsic to our nature that demands a god to have created it? Reason that I ask is that I can think of many natural laws which are intrinsic to our nature, e.g. the need to love and be loved, but on inspection they arise from biological imperatives.

My belief is that while we may indeed live in a deterministic universe, our combined collective intellect for the period that mankind has been, and will be, in existence is infinitesimal when compared to the potential complexity of that universe. As such, while the universe may be deterministic, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to comprehend it as such. On that basis, there will always be more knowledge that we don't posses than we do and therefore much we will never understand. Personally I think it is more sensible to simply acknowledge this ignorance than plug the knowledge gap with religious fable. I appreciate my ignorance as it enables my to have a sense of wonder safe in the knowledge that there will always be more to discover.

I'd also question how many people hold to a entirely materialistic philosophy. For example, anyone involved in the sciences works with mathematics which is a pure abstract. If you consider something as elementary as Pythagoras' theorem for example it deals with points on a plane, yet those points and plane do not actually exist. Similarly, materialism is an exceptionally blunt tool if you were to try to describe emotion, the arts, politics etc... and I doubt many would seriously limit themselves to this approach.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Could you give an example of such a natural law which is intrinsic to our nature that demands a god to have created it? Reason that I ask is that I can think of many natural laws which are intrinsic to our nature, e.g. the need to love and be loved, but on inspection they arise from biological imperatives.

I think the point is that if it is indeed intrinsic, or universal, it must have been created by God. If it is just as a result of our material interactions it should hold that once they change, this "law" would change also - it is not universal and commonly held, but rather a product of our environment.

As I said in my post I am at the "thinking" stage of this particular topic and do not have it worked out, so I hope (and honestly expect given your other posts, so please note that I am not having a dig) that an interesting discussion can be had on this, and not a "gotcha!" one.

But lets take one example, the right to life (and indeed other "natural" or universal rights). I think it is evident that humanity holds, universally, that innocent people have a right to life and should not be killed. Influences on positive law from this are evident, right across the spectrum, from workplace safety laws to laws against murder and assault. Now you could say that this idea that life should be protected, or that there is a right to life, has evolved as it serves a biological interest for our species, but we can see that this law applies universally, even when its application serves against this biological, and indeed immediate personal, interest. There are many examples of people consciously making (what we often view as heroic ) decisions often against their instinct. The opposite is true too, there are many examples of cruel acts of evil which disgust us, even though it could be argued, on a strictly rational basis, that they could or did serve the "greater good".

Incidentally, I sometimes observe the "I don't need to be religious to be moral" arguments with some degree of amusement, as of course the response would be here in the context of our discussion that of course you don't because these natural laws have been "written on your heart" before you were born. If you did need religion to be in any way moral (religion can help and guide those wishing to live the moral life of course) then that would be an argument in and of itself against the existence of natural law, and in turn, God.

My belief is that while we may indeed live in a deterministic universe, our combined collective intellect for the period that mankind has been, and will be, in existence is infinitesimal when compared to the potential complexity of that universe. As such, while the universe may be deterministic, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to comprehend it as such. On that basis, there will always be more knowledge that we don't posses than we do and therefore much we will never understand. Personally I think it is more sensible to simply acknowledge this ignorance than plug the knowledge gap with religious fable. I appreciate my ignorance as it enables my to have a sense of wonder safe in the knowledge that there will always be more to discover.

But religion does not "plug" this gap at all. Certainly Catholicism doesn't - it is accepted that, while we are "alive" at least we can never understand the nature of God (and thus the Universe etc.) but through philosophy and the sciences we can come closer to understanding the nature of the universe, and thus, its creator. In fact, it is imperative that we continue to search for the truth around us - this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church has put so much emphasis on education and often patronized the sciences (which it still does). So you still get all the wonder - even more wonder, and more to contemplate. A life led in the search for truth, for wisdom, is a noble one.

I'd also question how many people hold to a entirely materialistic philosophy. For example, anyone involved in the sciences works with mathematics which is a pure abstract. If you consider something as elementary as Pythagoras' theorem for example it deals with points on a plane, yet those points and plane do not actually exist. Similarly, materialism is an exceptionally blunt tool if you were to try to describe emotion, the arts, politics etc... and I doubt many would seriously limit themselves to this approach.

I think if you asked most people through what underlying philosophical "prism" they view the world you would get a reply of "huh"? I think we cannot really deal with it on a personal level but rather we have to ask what the dominant philosophy in society is. Or if not dominant, then the most influential. Currently I think it is pretty clear that it is materialism, in the "western world", certainly. Now, people are probably not sitting down and consciously deciding how to apply this philosophy to a particular topic and then proceeding accordingly. You know what I mean, it's in the zeitgeist.

I think the materialistic outlook is seriously unsatisfactory, not to mention depressing, for the reasons you mention and others beside. It's also very damaging too. I don't see how someone can, logically, "partially" espouse materialism to a point, surely it must apply to everything in order for it to stand. But I get your point, I do think this is happening in some ways. This serves to underline how incoherent things have become in society.

Even if you manage to dance around the "free will" implications, I think that a lot of people, should it be explained to them, would find it unsatisfactory too, if the philosophy is played out for them beyond that which is immediate.

John Hutton

indioblack wrote: »

I'm not sure that it's possible to consider arguments for the existence of God without rapidly seeking definitions of what this being might be.
Do you want, need or sense that there is a God? You would then need to consider these effects, how they arise, their cause and the reason for them.
This would require delving into one aspect of this, which I would want as a starting point, and that is reality - or "reality" [!].

We do not need a precise definition. A general one will suffice - neatly encapsulated in the term "God".

If you observe that something has occurred/is occurring why would you spend time trying to first precisely define in detail what the cause was before (or not at all) trying to logically work out what the general cause was (or wasn't)? Isn't that backwards? Would you not first try and figure out the general nature of the cause and then work on the specifics?

I am perfectly happy, and accept, indeed, this is the territory I want to explore, that in this conversation what I have mentioned points towards the existence of "a" God, and not necessarily the Christian one.

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

We do not need a precise definition. A general one will suffice - neatly encapsulated in the term "God".

If you observe that something has occurred/is occurring why would you spend time trying to first precisely define in detail what the cause was before (or not at all) trying to logically work out what the general cause was (or wasn't)? Isn't that backwards? Would you not first try and figure out the general nature of the cause and then work on the specifics?

I am perfectly happy, and accept, indeed, this is the territory I want to explore, that in this conversation what I have mentioned points towards the existence of "a" God, and not necessarily the Christian one.

Because the term God is already loaded. You have already decided that it is, just you are not sure exactly that the god thing is. But, it could just as easily be called nature, or something, or stuff we don't know or understand.

You are using the term god as a replacement for 'don't know' but it starts the conversation off on a particular path, where you are actually making the argument that god must exist , thus any evidence you have merely supports that.

You talk about the source of morals, yet in the next post you accept that there are many instances that morals seem not to apply. So morals is not a rule, or a law, but merely a suggestion. But there are plenty of examples of animals protecting their offspring and even animals of other types, do you believe animals have morals? Do you think this god gave them these morals? But why not volcanoes or the wind? Why did this god not imbue these with morals such that major disasters could be avoided? Seems that these morals apply to only a subset of one particular type of lifeform.

You keep mentioning 'gotcha', yet at the same time are claiming that you want a discussion. Having things pointed out that you may not have considered is not a gotcha, it is learning.

I asked previously, but you never replied, what alternatives to god have you considered and why did you reject them? What thing is it that makes you think that only a god could have done that?

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because the term God is already loaded. You have already decided that it is, just you are not sure exactly that the god thing is. But, it could just as easily be called nature, or something, or stuff we don't know or understand.

You are using the term god as a replacement for 'don't know' but it starts the conversation off on a particular path, where you are actually making the argument that god must exist , thus any evidence you have merely supports that.

But it's not a replacement for "don't know". Saying that "there is something" is very different from saying "I don't know if there is something".

You talk about the source of morals, yet in the next post you accept that there are many instances that morals seem not to apply. So morals is not a rule, or a law, but merely a suggestion. But there are plenty of examples of animals protecting their offspring and even animals of other types, do you believe animals have morals? Do you think this god gave them these morals? But why not volcanoes or the wind? Why did this god not imbue these with morals such that major disasters could be avoided? Seems that these morals apply to only a subset of one particular type of lifeform.

? The fact that people break natural laws means that they are not laws? Human rights don't exist because people violate them?

Do you think that animals have the same capacity to make decisions we do? Similar type of conscience etc? Are you saying that the wind is evil?

You keep mentioning 'gotcha', yet at the same time are claiming that you want a discussion. Having things pointed out that you may not have considered is not a gotcha, it is learning.

Keep mentioning?

I asked previously, but you never replied, what alternatives to god have you considered and why did you reject them? What thing is it that makes you think that only a god could have done that?

Again, my point is that the logic of arguments such as Aquinas five ways (I know I have mentioned these a few times, I must say that I am using these as one example and not suggesting that they are the be all and end all) points towards the existence of what we understand as God, to the exclusion of any other answer. Its not as if they lead us towards 10 possible answers and he picked the God one because he liked it. (I must stress that he didn't just say God, he said "what we understand as God").

Leroy42

John Hutton wrote: »

But it's not a replacement for "don't know". Saying that "there is something" is very different from saying "I don't know if there is something".

Only if you can define what that something is, and how you would be able to recognise it. Neither of which seems to be the case. Couldn't we replace god with Satan and come to the same conclusions?

John Hutton wrote: »

? The fact that people break natural laws means that they are not laws? Human rights don't exist because people violate them?

Do you think that animals have the same capacity to make decisions we do? Similar type of conscience etc? Are you saying that the wind is evil?

Isn't that the question I asked you, you can't ignore me question and ask me the very same. You used right to life as an example of morals, which you believe come from god. Animals seem to have the same belief, but you don't think animals are the same as humans in terms of god do you?

We cannot break natural laws. So I would argue that morals are merely constructs based on what a person believes to be in their best interest. Evil is carried out, either because people want something or don't care. In many cases, though not all, the people doing the evil do not see it as evil at the time. They believe they are doing what is required. The same, one could argue, as god laying waste to countless lives throughout the old testament.


Again, my point is that the logic of arguments such as Aquinas five ways (I know I have mentioned these a few times, I must say that I am using these as one example and not suggesting that they are the be all and end all) points towards the existence of what we understand as God, to the exclusion of any other answer. Its not as if they lead us towards 10 possible answers and he picked the God one because he liked it. (I must stress that he didn't just say God, he said "what we understand as God").[/QUOTE]

But I can see that you would prefer to have this discussion on the basis that your version of god is the only possibility. So let continue on that position.

What does it mean if it is true. If this god does exist, so what? Do you believe it interacts in our lives? Do you believe in takes an interest in what we do? And to what end? If this god is the creator of the universe, the source of all morals, what possible difference does it make if certain people either pray to him or not, or be nice or not? You are currently one of 7 bn people on this planet, with an estimated 100bn having lived throughout time. You really think what you individually do is important of makes a difference?

That is the bit that I struggle with. Why? Why wait for thousands of years to send Jesus down, and then never return to clarify the clear issues left behind. Did he not care about the previous people that lived before? Does he not care about the death and evil that occurs, many of it nothing to do with free will.

I certainly see plenty that I would like to think came from a god, but that is offset by much that I think only something evil, or uninterested, could allow. I look at the wonders of the world, and the universe, and then look at the waste al around us. Why develop a planet when so much if it we cannot live on? Why create such a vast and amazing universe but gives us no means by which to explore and enjoy it?

I can appreciate the argument that superior being created the universe, but I see no evidence of any interaction with it afterwards. I see no evidence that, if this god exists, he is remotely interested in this tiny part of the universe, and indeed not only that, but a tiny portion of this tiny part.

indioblack

John Hutton wrote: »

We do not need a precise definition. A general one will suffice - neatly encapsulated in the term "God".

If you observe that something has occurred/is occurring why would you spend time trying to first precisely define in detail what the cause was before (or not at all) trying to logically work out what the general cause was (or wasn't)? Isn't that backwards? Would you not first try and figure out the general nature of the cause and then work on the specifics?

I am perfectly happy, and accept, indeed, this is the territory I want to explore, that in this conversation what I have mentioned points towards the existence of "a" God, and not necessarily the Christian one.

You seem to have moved toward "The Edge of Mystery" as one writer put it. At one time I thought there was something beyond that threshold. There is always the possible consideration of how much is internal and how much "out there". Although it may not matter to you if you feel positive about the general direction you're travelling in. When this subject is raised with others, they have expressed a desire for "something more" - something out there, finding conventional religion insufficient.

John Hutton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only if you can define what that something is, and how you would be able to recognise it. Neither of which seems to be the case. Couldn't we replace god with Satan and come to the same conclusions?

You could call it what you want, but it would still end up being "what we understand as God". I am not saying a specific God, I am saying "God", a Deity, Supreme Being, Creator, etc. Please try to stop getting hung up on this point. Or answer this question, when you hear "god" what do you think that is, generally? (In terms of the meaning of the word).

Isn't that the question I asked you, you can't ignore me question and ask me the very same. You used right to life as an example of morals, which you believe come from god. Animals seem to have the same belief, but you don't think animals are the same as humans in terms of god do you?

I see zero evidence that animals have any beliefs. I do not believe that animals have the capacity to think and make decisions the way we do. I don't think it is a minority position to say that human beings are unique and different to animals.

We cannot break natural laws.

Of course we can. With respect, I don't think you understand what is meant by "natural law".

So I would argue that morals are merely constructs based on what a person believes to be in their best interest. Evil is carried out, either because people want something or don't care. In many cases, though not all, the people doing the evil do not see it as evil at the time.

If it is a construct than how can you consider it to be evil?

They believe they are doing what is required. The same, one could argue, as god laying waste to countless lives throughout the old testament.

Ah yes, you seem to be leaving behind trying to get me to lay the table and are doing it yourself instead.

But I can see that you would prefer to have this discussion on the basis that your version of god is the only possibility. So let continue on that position.

I have said it many times now that I am expressly interested in logical arguments for "a" God, or what we understand as God. I have pointed out, more than once, that these logical arguments would point towards the existence of "a" God, and not necessarily the Christian one. Why would you state that I want to have this discussion based on my version or definition of God when I have said umpteen times that I am not interested, for this discussion, in defining the precise nature of God, but that I want to discuss arguments about the existence of "a" God. This is dishonest of you.

What does it mean if it is true. If this god does exist, so what?

That a God exists and created the Universe is surely a "big deal"? The implications of this as massive for our understanding of the origins of the Universe and our place in it.

Do you believe it interacts in our lives? Do you believe in takes an interest in what we do? And to what end? If this god is the creator of the universe, the source of all morals, what possible difference does it make if certain people either pray to him or not, or be nice or not? You are currently one of 7 bn people on this planet, with an estimated 100bn having lived throughout time. You really think what you individually do is important of makes a difference?


That is the bit that I struggle with. Why? Why wait for thousands of years to send Jesus down, and then never return to clarify the clear issues left behind. Did he not care about the previous people that lived before? Does he not care about the death and evil that occurs, many of it nothing to do with free will.

So having set the table, you now seek to sweep it clean.

I certainly see plenty that I would like to think came from a god, but that is offset by much that I think only something evil, or uninterested, could allow. I look at the wonders of the world, and the universe, and then look at the waste al around us. Why develop a planet when so much if it we cannot live on? Why create such a vast and amazing universe but gives us no means by which to explore and enjoy it?

Why would you like to think it came from God?

I can appreciate the argument that superior being created the universe, but I see no evidence of any interaction with it afterwards. I see no evidence that, if this god exists, he is remotely interested in this tiny part of the universe, and indeed not only that, but a tiny portion of this tiny part.

Like the previous paragraph, worthy questions, but entirely separate from a discussion on whether a God exists. If you conclude that "a" God exists it is perfectly legitimate, and necessary, to then move on and ask such questions as whether He interacts with the world. But whether or not He does directly interact with the world through miracles etc., or did send his Son, or did whatever in any sacred scripture has no bearing on whether "a" God exists.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

I think the point is that if it is indeed intrinsic, or universal, it must have been created by God. If it is just as a result of our material interactions it should hold that once they change, this "law" would change also - it is not universal and commonly held, but rather a product of our environment.

As I said in my post I am at the "thinking" stage of this particular topic and do not have it worked out, so I hope (and honestly expect given your other posts, so please note that I am not having a dig) that an interesting discussion can be had on this, and not a "gotcha!" one.

Not looking for a gotcha, but if you're asserting that anything which is intrinsic to our nature must have been created by God, similarly asserting that is an argument for the existence of God is a tautology. Basically you can insert any other actor in for God in the above, e.g. a biological imperative, and you get the same result. To support the initial assertion you require something independent of that assertion.

But lets take one example, the right to life (and indeed other "natural" or universal rights). I think it is evident that humanity holds, universally, that innocent people have a right to life and should not be killed. Influences on positive law from this are evident, right across the spectrum, from workplace safety laws to laws against murder and assault. Now you could say that this idea that life should be protected, or that there is a right to life, has evolved as it serves a biological interest for our species, but we can see that this law applies universally, even when its application serves against this biological, and indeed immediate personal, interest. There are many examples of people consciously making (what we often view as heroic ) decisions often against their instinct. The opposite is true too, there are many examples of cruel acts of evil which disgust us, even though it could be argued, on a strictly rational basis, that they could or did serve the "greater good".

I think if you look at how we view fundamental human rights, and how this has evolved over time, what you will see is a human construct arrived at by consensus across many opposing traditions and continuously refined. The right to life is certainly an interesting one though it gets very contentious in the context of abortion which raises questions as to when does life as we understand it begin and how we resolve the right to life with the right to bodily autonomy. I'm wary of getting into this discussion here it will most likely derail your thread in endless repetition of the same arguments made ad nauseam in other threads in recent years.

I'd also question whether the right to life is intrinsic to Christianity for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a stated commandment and hence extrinsic. Secondly, Christianity includes the notion of just war. This includes the right to kill in certain circumstances, which in my opinion has been seriously abused on many occasions throughout history, most notably in the Cathar genocide within the Albigensian crusade. Now you might take this as an example of intrinsic evil, but Christianity has a long and bloody history of maintaining its dominant position through violence of one form or another. Of course this is not exclusive to Christianity but it is certainly a notable part of it, where "the greater good" as you call it tends to be interpreted as the greater good for Christendom at the expense of any who might oppose it.

Incidentally, I sometimes observe the "I don't need to be religious to be moral" arguments with some degree of amusement, as of course the response would be here in the context of our discussion that of course you don't because these natural laws have been "written on your heart" before you were born. If you did need religion to be in any way moral (religion can help and guide those wishing to live the moral life of course) then that would be an argument in and of itself against the existence of natural law, and in turn, God.

As previously, I think today's morality is a function of broad human consensus refined over many iterations. Different religious traditions such as Christianity, Islam and Hindu have different moral standards so it is a matter of finding common ground in an increasingly multicultural society. To this end I think secularism is very important in that we do not as a society allow any one religion dictate what we understand to be right and wrong. Failing to do this simply perpetuates ongoing conflict between different groups.

But religion does not "plug" this gap at all. Certainly Catholicism doesn't - it is accepted that, while we are "alive" at least we can never understand the nature of God (and thus the Universe etc.) but through philosophy and the sciences we can come closer to understanding the nature of the universe, and thus, its creator. In fact, it is imperative that we continue to search for the truth around us - this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church has put so much emphasis on education and often patronized the sciences (which it still does). So you still get all the wonder - even more wonder, and more to contemplate. A life led in the search for truth, for wisdom, is a noble one.

Any religion that includes a creation myth which seeks to explain how our universe came into being is basically plugging a knowledge gap. Again, Christianity and Genesis is not unique in this regard.

I think if you asked most people through what underlying philosophical "prism" they view the world you would get a reply of "huh"? I think we cannot really deal with it on a personal level but rather we have to ask what the dominant philosophy in society is. Or if not dominant, then the most influential. Currently I think it is pretty clear that it is materialism, in the "western world", certainly. Now, people are probably not sitting down and consciously deciding how to apply this philosophy to a particular topic and then proceeding accordingly. You know what I mean, it's in the zeitgeist.

I agree, philosophical introspection is not exactly the norm, most people simply go with the 'a la carte' option which has largely tended to be the religion they're raised with.

I think the materialistic outlook is seriously unsatisfactory, not to mention depressing, for the reasons you mention and others beside. It's also very damaging too. I don't see how someone can, logically, "partially" espouse materialism to a point, surely it must apply to everything in order for it to stand. But I get your point, I do think this is happening in some ways. This serves to underline how incoherent things have become in society.

Agreed again. Materialism answers a certain class of question very well, mostly the more technical ones. In my opinion, it is not a complete philosophy by which one can or should attempt to lead their life. For example, both personally and as a parent, I aspire to be kind, nourish a sense of wonder, inquisitiveness and good humour and make the most of my limited time in existence. Materialism is of no benefit here, where I fully accept that religion may be for some and other broad philosophical ideals are for others.

Even if you manage to dance around the "free will" implications, I think that a lot of people, should it be explained to them, would find it unsatisfactory too, if the philosophy is played out for them beyond that which is immediate.

Much like determinism, our extremely limited intellect renders the illusion of free will to be near perfect in my opinion. I think we also need to question whether finding something unsatisfactory implies that thing to be false. For example, many people find the idea of death being the termination of conscious existence to be unsatisfactory to say the least. This does not mean that it is not the case.

indioblack

John Hutton wrote: »

Like the previous paragraph, worthy questions, but entirely separate from a discussion on whether a God exists. If you conclude that "a" God exists it is perfectly legitimate, and necessary, to then move on and ask such questions as whether He interacts with the world. But whether or not He does directly interact with the world through miracles etc., or did send his Son, or did whatever in any sacred scripture has no bearing on whether "a" God exists.

You seem to want to set the limits on what should be included in this "search" for god, or "god" as you put it. You want to reason a deity, perhaps an entity of some description, [yet you do not wish description or definition]. Even so, you make references to Christianity, [it seems to me that that is your direction], and yet pull back from some basic aspects of the Christian god and the world.
It could be god or God or "god" - or something else.
Your posts indicate a moving toward Christianity - yet you seem to want to separate that from your search for a creator's existence.

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

Not looking for a gotcha, but if you're asserting that anything which is intrinsic to our nature must have been created by God, similarly asserting that is an argument for the existence of God is a tautology. Basically you can insert any other actor in for God in the above, e.g. a biological imperative, and you get the same result. To support the initial assertion you require something independent of that assertion.

This is interesting. Would you regard morality as simply a more layered and sophisticated "biological imperative"? Does humanity, through our minds, not have the capacity to "rise above" and rationalize, think and act outside and beyond biological imperatives? Should a new "biological imperative" arise which, through thinking etc. it is realised that the only solution is one which is in complete conflict with longstanding human rights or natural laws, would it then be justified to violate those rights/laws? In other words, is anything "always" evil?

I think if you look at how we view fundamental human rights, and how this has evolved over time, what you will see is a human construct arrived at by consensus across many opposing traditions and continuously refined. The right to life is certainly an interesting one though it gets very contentious in the context of abortion which raises questions as to when does life as we understand it begin and how we resolve the right to life with the right to bodily autonomy. I'm wary of getting into this discussion here it will most likely derail your thread in endless repetition of the same arguments made ad nauseam in other threads in recent years.

Yes I don't want to go down the abortion rabbit hole, but the fact that it is a contentious issue in the first place, and that it involves the balancing of rights, or arguing over whether or not something is really "a life" illustrates that in the first instance there is a fundamental "right to life". If this wasn't a fundamental viewpoint for all concerned it wouldn't be contentious at all.

I'd also question whether the right to life is intrinsic to Christianity for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a stated commandment and hence extrinsic. Secondly, Christianity includes the notion of just war. This includes the right to kill in certain circumstances, which in my opinion has been seriously abused on many occasions throughout history, most notably in the Cathar genocide within the Albigensian crusade. Now you might take this as an example of intrinsic evil, but Christianity has a long and bloody history of maintaining its dominant position through violence of one form or another. Of course this is not exclusive to Christianity but it is certainly a notable part of it, where "the greater good" as you call it tends to be interpreted as the greater good for Christendom at the expense of any who might oppose it.

Similar to my point above, the fact that a just war doctrine was in the first place necessary illustrates that there was a "hurdle", for humanity, of a "right to life" which had to be navigated (successful or otherwise it was felt necessary to try). But for the purposes of this discussion my point is that a natural law, such as the "right to life", is a intrinsic part of humanity itself and not something that a religion dreamed up and implemented. In fact, for the purposes of our discussion, you could easily argue that a man made religion is immoral/evil etc., entirely contrary to natural law, and my central point would remain intact.

As for the right to life being extrinsic, the fact that is was formulated and written down does not mean it is a wholly positive law. I think that people would have believed and adhered to it (or disapproved of deviations from it) "naturally". The human belief in the "right to life" didn't just begin when Moses wrote it down.

As previously, I think today's morality is a function of broad human consensus refined over many iterations. Different religious traditions such as Christianity, Islam and Hindu have different moral standards so it is a matter of finding common ground in an increasingly multicultural society. To this end I think secularism is very important in that we do not as a society allow any one religion dictate what we understand to be right and wrong. Failing to do this simply perpetuates ongoing conflict between different groups.

Doesn't the fact that there is some fundamental commonality to be found in the first place suggest that there are some core fundamental "morals" or natural laws, which exist independent of any (or no) religion?

In fact, one could easily argue that the search for completely secular laws is an effort to strip away "religious add-ons" and to bore down to fundamental and universal laws that humanity should govern itself by. Natural laws, in other words. (Of course this does not necessarily mean that any secular positive law is perfectly in accordance with natural law).

Any religion that includes a creation myth which seeks to explain how our universe came into being is basically plugging a knowledge gap. Again, Christianity and Genesis is not unique in this regard.

Logical arguments leading to a conclusion that there must be a creator are not mythology. You may argue that the conclusions or arguments are incorrect, but that is much different from saying it is a myth. Now, myth may be built on the foundation of these conclusions, but if you strip away this myth the conclusion is still there, the conclusion is not dependent upon the myth.

I agree, philosophical introspection is not exactly the norm, most people simply go with the 'a la carte' option which has largely tended to be the religion they're raised with.

Agreed again. Materialism answers a certain class of question very well, mostly the more technical ones. In my opinion, it is not a complete philosophy by which one can or should attempt to lead their life. For example, both personally and as a parent, I aspire to be kind, nourish a sense of wonder, inquisitiveness and good humour and make the most of my limited time in existence. Materialism is of no benefit here, where I fully accept that religion may be for some and other broad philosophical ideals are for others.

I'm a Catholic and I think that the fundamental views on right and wrong that you and I have would be more similar than different. Of course there would differences but I think these would be more about the extents, application, degree etc. rather than the fundamental idea.

Would you agree with this, and would you think that your "morality" etc. is a product of Judaeo-Christian historic influence or rather "basic" human decency and reasoning?

Much like determinism, our extremely limited intellect renders the illusion of free will to be near perfect in my opinion. I think we also need to question whether finding something unsatisfactory implies that thing to be false. For example, many people find the idea of death being the termination of conscious existence to be unsatisfactory to say the least. This does not mean that it is not the case.

Sorry, when I said "unsatisfactory" I meant intellectually so, and not in a sense that someone doesn't like the sound of it!

John Hutton

indioblack wrote: »

You seem to want to set the limits on what should be included in this "search" for god, or "god" as you put it. You want to reason a deity, perhaps an entity of some description, [yet you do not wish description or definition]. Even so, you make references to Christianity, [it seems to me that that is your direction], and yet pull back from some basic aspects of the Christian god and the world.
It could be god or God or "god" - or something else.
Your posts indicate a moving toward Christianity - yet you seem to want to separate that from your search for a creator's existence.

Well I did start this thread in the Christianity forum, in the context of how these logical arguments have impacted on me on my "faith journey". The point of the thread was basically to ask people what arguments like these have helped them, and for them to share and to discuss them. Only one poster has really done this in some fashion. Now it's not a loss because the conversation has been interesting.

My concern is that by moving on to the nature of God, or specific Christian beliefs, we are jumping over and skipping the fundamental logical "proofs" regarding the existence of 'god or God or "god"' as you put it.

It's a bit like wanting to talk about the basics of an internal combustion engine and how it works, the physics involved etc. but then just skipping over that and talking about what model of car is coolest. I'm bad at analogies but you know what I mean.

indioblack

John Hutton wrote: »

Well I did start this thread in the Christianity forum, in the context of how these logical arguments have impacted on me on my "faith journey". The point of the thread was basically to ask people what arguments like these have helped them, and for them to share and to discuss them. Only one poster has really done this in some fashion. Now it's not a loss because the conversation has been interesting.

My concern is that by moving on to the nature of God, or specific Christian beliefs, we are jumping over and skipping the fundamental logical "proofs" regarding the existence of 'god or God or "god"' as you put it.

It's a bit like wanting to talk about the basics of an internal combustion engine and how it works, the physics involved etc. but then just skipping over that and talking about what model of car is coolest. I'm bad at analogies but you know what I mean.

I do.
As you point out this is the Christianity forum - so that gives direction and some definition. Still a broad church, [no pun intended!], so plenty of room.
One basic argument often put forward is that there is something, [the material world], rather than nothing. In the context of the forum therefore this requires a cause, first cause, and who or what is that originator.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

This is interesting. Would you regard morality as simply a more layered and sophisticated "biological imperative"? Does humanity, through our minds, not have the capacity to "rise above" and rationalize, think and act outside and beyond biological imperatives? Should a new "biological imperative" arise which, through thinking etc. it is realised that the only solution is one which is in complete conflict with longstanding human rights or natural laws, would it then be justified to violate those rights/laws? In other words, is anything "always" evil?

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.

Yes I don't want to go down the abortion rabbit hole, but the fact that it is a contentious issue in the first place, and that it involves the balancing of rights, or arguing over whether or not something is really "a life" illustrates that in the first instance there is a fundamental "right to life". If this wasn't a fundamental viewpoint for all concerned it wouldn't be contentious at all.

Similar to my point above, the fact that a just war doctrine was in the first place necessary illustrates that there was a "hurdle", for humanity, of a "right to life" which had to be navigated (successful or otherwise it was felt necessary to try). But for the purposes of this discussion my point is that a natural law, such as the "right to life", is a intrinsic part of humanity itself and not something that a religion dreamed up and implemented. In fact, for the purposes of our discussion, you could easily argue that a man made religion is immoral/evil etc., entirely contrary to natural law, and my central point would remain intact.

This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.

As for the right to life being extrinsic, the fact that is was formulated and written down does not mean it is a wholly positive law. I think that people would have believed and adhered to it (or disapproved of deviations from it) "naturally". The human belief in the "right to life" didn't just begin when Moses wrote it down.

Doesn't the fact that there is some fundamental commonality to be found in the first place suggest that there are some core fundamental "morals" or natural laws, which exist independent of any (or no) religion?

In fact, one could easily argue that the search for completely secular laws is an effort to strip away "religious add-ons" and to bore down to fundamental and universal laws that humanity should govern itself by. Natural laws, in other words. (Of course this does not necessarily mean that any secular positive law is perfectly in accordance with natural law).

I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.

Logical arguments leading to a conclusion that there must be a creator are not mythology. You may argue that the conclusions or arguments are incorrect, but that is much different from saying it is a myth. Now, myth may be built on the foundation of these conclusions, but if you strip away this myth the conclusion is still there, the conclusion is not dependent upon the myth.

Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.

I'm a Catholic and I think that the fundamental views on right and wrong that you and I have would be more similar than different. Of course there would differences but I think these would be more about the extents, application, degree etc. rather than the fundamental idea.

Would you agree with this, and would you think that your "morality" etc. is a product of Judaeo-Christian historic influence or rather "basic" human decency and reasoning?

In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

Again, just my opinion, but looking for natural laws which aren't based on the broadest possible consensus are prone to lead you to a position where you judge others from a skewed view point. Better perhaps to avoid judging others wherever possible.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Well I did start this thread in the Christianity forum, in the context of how these logical arguments have impacted on me on my "faith journey". The point of the thread was basically to ask people what arguments like these have helped them, and for them to share and to discuss them. Only one poster has really done this in some fashion. Now it's not a loss because the conversation has been interesting.

Just looking at this now and possibly better I leave the discussion at this point as my position clearly runs contrary to your above stated intention for the thread. Interesting enough for all that.

antiskeptic

John Hutton wrote: »

Everyone has a different journey to make regarding God, and He speaks to us and makes His presence known to each individual in different ways.

Personally, the exciting road I am on started off when I became truly open to the idea of the existence of "a" God. Before this I was a lapsed Catholic, probably agnostic if not atheist, only "resorting" to my faith in desperate times of crisis. In many ways I was a victim of the prevailing idea that there were no rational, philosophical or otherwise, arguments for the existence of God, and that you could only believe in this type of thing if you were stupid, or denied science.

But having the hunger for the truth, I began to explore these things more deeply, and discovered that there are "rational" arguments for the existence of God. Once I became open to the idea and possibility, indeed probability, of "a" God existing, things have flowed from there and as times goes on and I explore the scriptures etc, my faith has grown. But this wouldn't have happened without getting over that first hurdle.

As one example, I found Aquinas' five ways helpful. But I am interested in what other "rational" (by this I mean knowledge and understanding gained outside of immediate personal encounters with God/Holy Spirit/Grace etc.) arguments posters here have found helpful, because I think these open the door (they have for me anyway). So please do share.

It seems to me (and it seems to make sense to me) that every argument for God, no matter how compelling on face value, can be met with an equally compelling argument to the contrary.

The fine tuned universe, for example, finds it's most compelling aspect in the sheer magicality of what has occurred on Earth.

But magicality, whilst overcomingly powerful to some - usually the already converted, finds, understandably, no such purchase in others. They.may be astounded in micro mode just like us. But in macro mode its simply: "There are an infinite number of Lotto numbers and we just happen to be Lotto winners"


I don't think it's humanly possible to argue for (or against God). The argument will just to and fro until the strands become too large for any human minds to hold together. On a public discussion forum at any rate.

Anyway. You were convinced of God's existence by arguments. Or something else?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.



This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.



I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.



Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.



In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

Again, just my opinion, but looking for natural laws which aren't based on the broadest possible consensus are prone to lead you to a position where you judge others from a skewed view point. Better perhaps to avoid judging others wherever possible.

I don't understand this 'secularisim' gig.

Everybody has a belief system. And that belief system drives views. And if in a position of power, those views can form policy affecting the many.

How do you get a secular society (a society in which personal beliefs don't hold sway).

Defining it as non-religious merely excludes a particular segment of views, namely the religious view.

But since all belief are religious (as in they answer fundamental existential questions), how to pick and choose?

You exclude say "Catholicism" but don't exclude viewpoints that see life as the product of.merely natural processes??

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.

Different societies can and do have different views on what is and is not moral, but my point would be that there are still commonalities. People can be, and in many instances are, "trained" to believe that certain immoral acts are moral by either society, or sometimes individuals or groups.

This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.

But why do we view it as precious though? They do not view it as inviolable, but do believe that it is necessary to think up a "good excuse" to violate it.

I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.

If they have to be "agreed on", then how can they be held as inviolable for all time? Couldn't a country, or indeed an individual, just toss it aside and say they no longer agree? And how could we say that that is illegitimate?

Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.

My point is this, saying that the Bible was made up, or even proving that, would not "prove" or even move us closer to proving, that God doesn't exist. Nor would it undermine the logic arguments I have been referring to.

In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

I profoundly disagree here - it is the current situation of late stage capitalism that is destroying the planet - greed and over-consumption - not that there is too many people. Humanity can adjust the way it lives and support more people. The fact that we can't support billions more (although even this is debatable) they we are living now, doesn't mean they cannot be supported no matter what.

I think the commodification of children by would be parents is far more damaging to individuals, families (and thus society) than by a family having five kids. (Although anecdotally, many people are now waiting until their mid thirties before "settling now", not leaving much time to have 5 or 10 kids!).