What is the purpose of God?

[sthitapragya]

I will stop my questions here because I would then have to question you on Christianity and I understand that it is very personal to you.

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.

Well, it is a touchy subject. And I have usually seen that is it personal. I learnt it the hard way when I offended some very close friends and the damage control simply pointed out to me that what I did was classless and tasteless. Ever since then, I just avoid it. You are one of the few people in the "opposite camp" that I get along with. I would just like to keep it that way.

[Skip]

"He should have used stronger elastic."

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it is a touchy subject. And I have usually seen that is it personal. I learnt it the hard way when I offended some very close friends and the damage control simply pointed out to me that what I did was classless and tasteless.

How odd. I think there's nothing "classless" or "tasteless" about asking someone something about what they genuinely believe to be true...provided one did it with sincerity and not sarcastically or deliberately insultingly...and your reaction suggests you intended no offense, so maybe he shouldn't have been so prickly.

Ever since then, I just avoid it. You are one of the few people in the "opposite camp" that I get along with. I would just like to keep it that way.

Well, (to the sound of old Kenny Loggins) "I'm alright; don't nobody worry 'bout me."

[Arising_uk]

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.

What are you talking about? We can't get them to shut-up about it upon a philosophy forum despite what Kant said.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.

What are you talking about? We can't get them to shut-up about it upon a philosophy forum despite what Kant said.

As if Kant was necessarily correct, the single most dominating factor in such a case. As you have so often mentioned, "this is a philosophy forum," and as such nothing should be off the table. He that excludes any dialog concerning any topic, knows not the heart of philosophy, instead is hung up on what appeals to their mindset as if that's necessarily the indicator of truth, rather in fact, a pitfall of merely, would be, philosophers.

"Q: When is a skeptic not a skeptic?
A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism!"

Of course the word skeptic can be exchanged with many other words, including knowledge, with some minor grammatical adjustments, and the point still stands.

"Especially question oneself, if one truly understands what's at the heart of philosophy."

[Immanuel Can]

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.

What are you talking about? We can't get them to shut-up about it upon a philosophy forum despite what Kant said.

As if Kant was necessarily correct, the single most dominating factor in such a case. As you have so often mentioned, "this is a philosophy forum," and as such nothing should be off the table. He that excludes any dialog concerning any topic, knows not the heart of philosophy, instead is hung up on what appeals to their mindset as if that's necessarily the indicator of truth, rather in fact, a pitfall of merely, would be, philosophers.

"Q: When is a skeptic not a skeptic?
A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism!"

Of course the word skeptic can be exchanged with many other words, including knowledge, with some minor grammatical adjustments, and the point still stands.

"Especially question oneself, if one truly understands what's at the heart of philosophy."

Hey, you know what?

I think I agree with you entirely.

Nicely said.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Funny. People today seem to think that faith is like underwear -- everybody may have some, but it's terribly impolite to talk about it.

What are you talking about? We can't get them to shut-up about it upon a philosophy forum despite what Kant said.

As if Kant was necessarily correct, the single most dominating factor in such a case. As you have so often mentioned, "this is a philosophy forum," and as such nothing should be off the table. He that excludes any dialog concerning any topic, knows not the heart of philosophy, instead is hung up on what appeals to their mindset as if that's necessarily the indicator of truth, rather in fact, a pitfall of merely, would be, philosophers.

"Q: When is a skeptic not a skeptic?
A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism!"

Of course the word skeptic can be exchanged with many other words, including knowledge, with some minor grammatical adjustments, and the point still stands.

"Especially question oneself, if one truly understands what's at the heart of philosophy."

Hey, you know what?

I think I agree with you entirely.

Nicely said.

Thanks!

It would surely seem that everyone has their own gods they worship, whether they'd admit it, is quite another story. I find that many humans are caught up in denial about a great many things, as it supports their JTB, without which, they'd feel bared; naked and afraid; their self fortifying construct demolished; lost. It's human enough alright, which is why I have no real respect for our species current condition, intellectually speaking. Sure we are clever enough to manipulate elements to serve our purpose, but what I believe shows the truest intelligence, is the animal understanding the truest view of its own mind, so as to eliminate all it's mental contradictions.

Thus I wish Scotty would beam me up! I crave a fertile growing medium, where I can finally be comfortable being it's student, such that "garbage in, garbage out" can be eliminated. Here, currently, the want of riches and power, by some, severely taints the growing medium. Largely it's all about control, for fear, which severely clouds the water's of knowledge and truth!

I worship the universe, and in its shadow, I pity mankind!

[Immanuel Can]

Hey, you know what?

I think I agree with you entirely.

Nicely said.

Thanks!

It would surely seem that everyone has their own gods they worship, whether they'd admit it, is quite another story. I find that many humans are caught up in denial about a great many things, as it supports their JTB, without which, they'd feel bared; naked and afraid; their self fortifying construct demolished; lost. It's human enough alright, which is why I have no real respect for our species current condition, intellectually speaking. Sure we are clever enough to manipulate elements to serve our purpose, but what I believe shows the truest intelligence, is the animal understanding the truest view of its own mind, so as to eliminate all it's mental contradictions.

Thus I wish Scotty would beam me up! I crave a fertile growing medium, where I can finally be comfortable being it's student, such that "garbage in, garbage out" can be eliminated. Here, currently, the want of riches and power, by some, severely taints the growing medium. Largely it's all about control, for fear, which severely clouds the water's of knowledge and truth!

I worship the universe, and in its shadow, I pity mankind!

I think you're right. The propensity to refuse to look critically and analytically at ones own beliefs is not merely a 'religious" feature -- it's a "human" feature, a liability of us all. As a Theist, I would call it an artifact of the fallenness of humanity, but we can construe it as we wish. As an Atheist, one might call it "intellectual dishonesty." The point is that it is a universal phenomenon, not a particular one: and that both you and I see it as a fact.

The good thing, I think, is that it can be beaten. It takes a lot of philosophical work, along with not a few philosophical virtues such as honesty, integrity, charity, and so forth...that, and time. But the hope of philosophy is that it can be done. Hence, discussions like our present one.

For which I am grateful for your observation.

[Arising_uk]

As if Kant was necessarily correct, the single most dominating factor in such a case. As you have so often mentioned, "this is a philosophy forum," and as such nothing should be off the table. He that excludes any dialog concerning any topic, knows not the heart of philosophy, instead is hung up on what appeals to their mindset as if that's necessarily the indicator of truth, rather in fact, a pitfall of merely, would be, philosophers. ...

The only necessary truths are the tautologies and contradictions, as such, in Philosophy, Kant's metaphysical argument has yet to have been countered satisfactorily so I look forward to your critique(if you've read the Critique of Pure Reason that is, which I seriously doubt).

A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism!"

What a stupid statement, as if anyone was sceptical of their scepticism they'd not be a sceptic but as it is a sceptic is only sceptical up until reason convinces them otherwise.

Of course the word skeptic can be exchanged with many other words, including knowledge, with some minor grammatical adjustments, and the point still stands.

There is no point.

"Especially question oneself, if one truly understands what's at the heart of philosophy."

The heart of Philosophy is Reason and Logic.

If you are going to quote someone then shouldn't you attribute them?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As if Kant was necessarily correct, the single most dominating factor in such a case. As you have so often mentioned, "this is a philosophy forum," and as such nothing should be off the table. He that excludes any dialog concerning any topic, knows not the heart of philosophy, instead is hung up on what appeals to their mindset as if that's necessarily the indicator of truth, rather in fact, a pitfall of merely, would be, philosophers. ...

The only necessary truths are the tautologies and contradictions, as such, in Philosophy, Kant's metaphysical argument has yet to have been countered satisfactorily
To your ability to understand!

so I look forward to your critique
Thank you!

(if you've read the Critique of Pure Reason that is, which I seriously doubt).
Here you try and take a pot shot as if it's necessarily to do with my intellectual capabilities; your protection fear racket.

A: When he's not skeptical of his own skepticism!"

What a stupid statement,
Only to a stupid person!

as if anyone was sceptical of their scepticism they'd not be a sceptic
A totally invalid statement, as usual your logic is flawed.


but as it is a sceptic is only sceptical up until reason convinces them otherwise.
A foolish assumption to save your construct from demolition, your absolutism in the face of fear!

Of course the word skeptic can be exchanged with many other words, including knowledge, with some minor grammatical adjustments, and the point still stands.

There is no point.
To a foolish egoist, sure, Asinking_uk! Groom your ignorance and it shall surely flourish!

"Especially question oneself, if one truly understands what's at the heart of philosophy."

The heart of Philosophy is Reason and Logic.
Exactly, so then if you truly understand this why are your words so illogical? Instead largely just your means of vindictiveness. Your a poser Asinking_uk, a poser!


If you are going to quote someone then shouldn't you attribute them?
It's just like you to want to pray to your gods, as if they've created life itself! Largely I believe your mind to be devoid of any reason, you're simply a parrot. And as they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out!"

[Walker]

Why does God exist? What is the purpose of his existence?

Why do you exist?
What is the purpose of your existence?

That should be your second concern, and God isn't the first.

[Arising_uk]

To your ability to understand!

No! To a shitload of smarter philosophical minds than mine who have also read it and I've also read their critiques and still think them not quite spot-on, which is what Philosophy is all about.

Thank you!

Where is it?

Here you try and take a pot shot as if it's necessarily to do with my intellectual capabilities; your protection fear racket.

Have you read it then?

Only to a stupid person!

Not philosophically it isn't.

A totally invalid statement, as usual your logic is flawed.

It may well be, show me how.

A foolish assumption to save your construct from demolition, your absolutism in the face of fear!

And out comes the pet psycho-babble.

To a foolish egoist, sure, Asinking_uk! Groom your ignorance and it shall surely flourish!

You really think I care about your erroneous pet psycho-babble 'theory' of how I arrived at my nik do you SpheresOf Bollocks.

Exactly, so then if you truly understand this why are your words so illogical? Instead largely just your means of vindictiveness. Your a poser Asinking_uk, a poser!

You wish.

It's just like you to want to pray to your gods, as if they've created life itself! Largely I believe your mind to be devoid of any reason, you're simply a parrot. And as they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out!"

All I asked was why did you quote someone without attributing them?

[sthitapragya]

I can see that the premise of both our arguments can be claimed as false. However, I see internal consistency in both arguments making them both valid arguments. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well, you have done very well...I'm impressed. Quite right.

We can put it more simply, too, if you'd like.

Theistic Version
Premise 1: If God does not exist, no objective justification for morality exists; but if He does, we have one.
Premise 2: God does exist.
Conclusion: We have an objective basis for morality.

Atheistic Version
Premise 1: If God does not exist, no objective basis for morality exists; but if He does, we have one.
Premise 2: God does not exist.
Conclusion: We have no objective justification for morality.

And you are quite right: both are what logicians call "valid." That means that there is nothing wrong with the rational form in which the arguments proceed. What is actually in dispute is premise 2 -- does God exist or not?

On that, everything depends, of course.

But I congratulate you on how well you worked this out for yourself, since you are astute to see that both can indeed be rendered in rationally valid forms. So all we Theists and Atheists have been arguing from the start is our second premises. Both sides are behaving rationally, but they diverge on the root assumption. That's all.

And that's a useful insight. Because you can see that even if we are taking opposite sides, we don't have to see each other as irrational, wicked, obdurate or stupid. Instead, we can recognize each other as rational, but merely operating on different rational premises; and we can discuss the key premises calmly and politely, like rational people ought to.

I think you and I would agree that's the right way for us to go.

Since you insisted on bringing this topic up on another thread, I thought let us continue this discussion here. And it just occurred to me that even what you claim is objective morality is purely subjective. You might believe that a Christian God exists, but there are other people of other religions who believe their God is the true one and the morals of their Gods are different from yours. Then there are those who do not believe that God exists and their morals are different too. Each has made a subjective decision to adopt certain morals. You just claim that yours are objective because you derived your morals from a God you believe exists. But your decision is purely subjective just as the decision of a believer of another religion calling his morals objective because they are derived from what he believes his God commanded.

Take for example Exodus 31:15 which is clear about not working on the Sabbath. I am pretty sure that you do some work on Sundays. You might justify why you do it. But the fact is that if your morality were objective, you would have no option but to not work on a Sunday. But you subjectively decided to ignore what for you is objective morality. Then there is the one about mixing two kinds of material in clothes. You probably ignore that one too subjectively.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you insisted on bringing this topic up on another thread, I thought let us continue this discussion here. And it just occurred to me that even what you claim is objective morality is purely subjective. You might believe that a Christian God exists, but there are other people of other religions who believe their God is the true one and the morals of their Gods are different from yours. Then there are those who do not believe that God exists and their morals are different too. Each has made a subjective decision to adopt certain morals. You just claim that yours are objective because you derived your morals from a God you believe exists. But your decision is purely subjective just as the decision of a believer of another religion calling his morals objective because they are derived from what he believes his God commanded.

You would be quite right, if certain things were true. IF, as Atheists wish us to believe, all religions are just human perspectives on non-existent things, then yes, all is subjective. And even if certain things were objectively true, but we had reason to know that nobody knew them (though, of course, that would be contradictory, since then WE would know them), then the objective truth would not save us from all having only a subjective epistemological relationship to those objective truths.

But everything changes if God speaks. For if there is an objective morality, then God alone knows what it is; but there would be absolutely no reason to think, then, that God could not choose to tell us what those objective moral standards were -- if He were to decide to do so.

And then all our "subjectivities" -- yours, mine, and everybody's would have to be measured by the objective standard of the truth of God.

The only question, then, is "Has God spoken"? You might say "No." I would say, "Yes."

Take for example Exodus 31:15 which is clear about not working on the Sabbath.

Well, we could sidetrack into a discussion of the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the difference between instructions for the Jewish People and for the Gentiles, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that a bit particular for your tastes.

Suffice it to say, the instructions for Gentile Christians are more of a guideline -- they meet on "the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7) because that's when the early Christians also met. And it's no longer a commandment that that should be the only day. So again, they're following a Biblical principle, though not the particular Jewish tradition you picked out.

A funny issue for you to choose...I doubt you're much interested in it. You're probably more concerned with how to conclusively prove to yourself I'm some kind of fraud or hypocrite, so you can dismiss my view entirely. But if so, that's merely ad hominem, a fallacy of thinking. For even an inveterate liar is forced to tell the truth from time to time, if only to keep his lies going. So even if I were a liar, you would not be able thereby to tell yourself whether or not what I spoke on this occasion was one of my truths or one of my falsehoods.

Instead, perhaps you should realize that under Atheism, being a liar, a fraud and a hypocrite isn't even wrong! It's just one choice among others. All choices are morally equal, because they're all subjective.

Now, I sense you don't really believe that. But you've got to ask yourself WHY you believe it, since Atheism gives you no warrant for thinking any differently.

[Necromancer]

Theistic Version
Premise 1: If God does exist, an objective justification for morality exists; if He does, we have one.
Premise 2: God does exist.
Conclusion: We have an objective basis for morality.

I believe the Theistic Version should read like the one above (Modus Ponens). Otherwise you have an argument of Modus Tollens type which makes it logically wrong.

True?

Necro-