What is the purpose of God?

[sthitapragya]

First of all not understanding Hinduism is not being inferior to Hinduism.

That doesn't solve the problem. You've redefined the axis, but retained the dichotomy here. Now the dichotomy is "understand/not understand." And then there's

fullness of Hinduism

...in contrast to less-than-fully-exposed Hinduism.

Then you say,

There are standards for being a Hindu. You have to be born one.

Then it's neither a religion nor a philosophy. It's genetic, and that's all. And you cannot recommend it to anyone, because lacking the "birth" criterion, they cannot be a Hindu.

Now you have a further dichotomy: Hindu / non-Hindu.

If you want to find God, Hinduism shows you how.

More implicit dichotomy: those who (want to) find god / those who do not.

I can't seem to get the point across how ever I try.

I think that Ravi Zacharias (a former Hindu himself) has correctly identified the reason for that. It's not your fault you find it difficult to defend Hinduism rationally; Hinduism itself is simply inconsistent on that point.

If God does not exist, paedophilia is harmful to children and those who understand that should prevent it for the good of the species.
There's no reason to accept the supposition "We must do the good of the species," particularly when it contradicts our personal interest. You would need to prove that one.

Meanwhile, even if you could (which I think you cannot, at least not in a rational way from your worldview) you would be now making an argument for the paedophelia of all young women of fertile age, and the turning of all adult women into breeding stock. That would serve the survival interests of the species, since it would be the surest way to the creating of the most people. But I'm relieved to say you have no grounds for any belief we owe anything to the species, if that same species is nothing but the contingent product of an indifferent universe.

Even extinction is not "wrong" for the race, if there are no rights and wrongs. Species die all the time, some by human causes and others by natural selection or climate change, such as the ice age. Thus you are left without a rational, non-partisan basis for caring about the extinction of your own species.

So in my world view, there are no rights or wrongs.

Then you have not a single basis for complaint against the belief in God. Nothing's wrong with the world, just as I said earlier. Even false belief in God is not "wrong," for no such thing as "wrong" exists. And we have solved your anxieties on that point.

Or have we? I suspect we have not.

Why are you assuming I am trying to defend Hinduism? I am not. I explained how it works. If you don't agree, cool. Let us drop the topic. I would suggest actually coming and staying in India for few years to understand it. If that is too much, drop it. I don't want to get into a legal court case about it. Hinduism doesn't care what you think of it.

As far as belief in God goes, like paedophilia, I think it is something that is harmful for human beings as a species. If I am right and we continue with religion, we might become extinct.if I am wrong, we will continue with religion and not go extinct. Makes no difference to me because I will be long gone.

And my complaint has never been against a belief in God. You are either deliberately or unintentionally misinterpreting what I say and it is a little irritating. I don't do that to you so I would expect you not to do that to me. You are also now assuming my psychological condition and rapidly taking this conversation towards an argument which you so wanted to avoid. And there is a reek of condescension too. So if you wish we can go back to being civil again but you need to rephrase your whole reply.

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you assuming I am trying to defend Hinduism?

I'm not, actually. Rather, I'm challenging the view that morality is a non-objective property, whether that assertion is made by a Hindu or an Atheist. It's just not rational either way, I believe.

As far as belief in God goes, like paedophilia, I think it is something that is harmful for human beings as a species.

Now, of course, to say that, you would need to show that. You'll probably know that history and statistics are not in your favour. But since you have not yet shown that "harming the species" is wrong, because you don't believe in "wrong," we're not in a position to fault anything for "being harmful to human beings as a species." There is more work to do here: I'm just inviting you to show how it can be done.

And there is a reek of condescension too. So if you wish we can go back to being civil again but you need to rephrase your whole reply.

Apologies. Did my manner come across as unkind rather than simply a calm taking of exception? If so, then the fault was in the wording, not in my intent. Condescension was not on my mind.

I'm not trying to be argumentative for argumentation's sake. I'm testing your claims, because you made some strong ones, ones that seemed intended to set Theists back on their heels. You've invoked the Argument from Evil, paedophelia, and other such cases in aid of a statement that God cannot exist. I'm taking your challenge seriously, and I'm trying to respond. As a Theist, what else should I do? Does your challenge not deserve a serious answer? Well, I'm doing my (poor) best.

That being said, I have genuine questions about your argument, and I think it has difficulty standing up to certain basic tests available in the field of Moral Philosophy. In saying so, I'm not proposing any moral superiority of my own, so please do not take that implication. I'm just using the available tests in what I see as a rational way. And I will admit to a certain...familiarity with the field, so perhaps responses which seem too quick to you are not so. Certainly no insult is intended.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

First there's no such thing as God. It was just something made up by needy men.
But there may be a creator responsible for the universe, maybe contained within the universe, who's to say?

Obviously, if there is a creator, it's purpose was to create. Beyond that who could possibly know, maybe only schizophrenics, as they are known for hearing voices.

For men, in it's purest form, their god's purpose was the reason we exist, and for those, in it's impurest form, a means to control others to their liking. Of course in the midst of chaos it's understandable, though as it often happens, "absolute power, corrupts absolutely," and of course it did.

[sthitapragya]

That doesn't solve the problem.

What problem are you talking about?

You've redefined the axis, but retained the dichotomy here.

What dichotomy are you talking about? I am using a language and if you take a word out of context you can create a dichotomy or a dinosaur. And what does dichotomy have to do with what we were talking about? How is it a problem?

More implicit dichotomy: those who (want to) find god / those who do not.

Again so what is the problem? there are people who want to find God and those who do not. What is this dichotomy thing you have started? I honestly do not understand what you are pointing to.

I think that Ravi Zacharias (a former Hindu himself) has correctly identified the reason for that. It's not your fault you find it difficult to defend Hinduism rationally; Hinduism itself is simply inconsistent on that point.

I don't think you actually read what I write. The point I was trying to get across had nothing to do with Hinduism. The topic had changed. You need to go back and read it.

If God does not exist, paedophilia is harmful to children and those who understand that should prevent it for the good of the species.
There's no reason to accept the supposition "We must do the good of the species," particularly when it contradicts our personal interest. You would need to prove that one.

This now raises an issue we have not discussed so far. Where do you stand? What is your opinion on pedophilia? You seem to suggest that there is no reason to accept the supposition " we must do the good of the species". Well, then what must we do?

Meanwhile, even if you could (which I think you cannot, at least not in a rational way from your worldview) you would be now making an argument for the paedophelia of all young women of fertile age, and the turning of all adult women into breeding stock.

Now I seriously think you do not read what I read. I don't understand how you made the jump to me supporting pedophilia or turning women into breeding stock. If your purpose here is to win a debate with sleight of hand, I have lost. I concede defeat. But this now seems to suggest deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said, and also at times completely ignoring what I have said.

Even extinction is not "wrong" for the race, if there are no rights and wrongs. Species die all the time, some by human causes and others by natural selection or climate change, such as the ice age. Thus you are left without a rational, non-partisan basis for caring about the extinction of your own species.

You seem to have forgotten hardwiring. Caring for the species, protective instinct towards children, specifically our own, is hardwired into MOST humans to ensure survival. It has nothing to do with rational thought process. I know for a fact that my life or my daughter's life have no meaning or purpose. We are here. But nothing can stop me from protecting her. There is no rational for it. It is my hardwiring.

Then you have not a single basis for complaint against the belief in God. Nothing's wrong with the world, just as I said earlier. Even false belief in God is not "wrong," for no such thing as "wrong" exists. And we have solved your anxieties on that point.

See? Again you are ignoring everything I have said. I have repeatedly stated that the concept of right and wrong, sin etc are directly connected to God, in the sense that religion has created these word along with God. Without God, these words have no meaning. In reality, these words have no meaning. I have no complaint against God. [/b]I have consistently been only pointing out that If God exists, Good and evil and sin and right and wrong exist. Now if you assume God exists, you also have to assume that these words exist and have meaning. In such a case, if God designed the world to be violent , then by the same rules created by religion, there is no option but to call the system designed by God to be evil.

And by the way, this is the point I was trying to make which you for some reason thought had something to do with hinduism, which prompted me to believe that you really do not read everything I write.

Now the other problem here is that you have not stated what kind of God you believe in. So I have to assume certain things. So till you clarify the kind of God you believe in, there is little I can do to debate with you, because you will simply judge my statements against your beliefs which I do not know about and call them wrong.

[sthitapragya]

I'm not, actually. Rather, I'm challenging the view that morality is a non-objective property, whether that assertion is made by a Hindu or an Atheist. It's just not rational either way, I believe.

Okay. And what is your argument in support of your challenge?

[Immanuel Can]

What dichotomy are you talking about?

A dichotomy refers to a two-polarity distinction: good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, true vs. false, and so on. Ethics is concerned with such distinctions: it asks what makes one thing "better" or "worse" than another, or one thing "good" and another "bad."

I'm just pointing out to you that you say there are no moral/ethical standards. But your language continuously draws on dichotomies. You make value judgments constantly, then claim there are no objective values. You cannot logically have it both ways.

A particularly clear case is when you first indict paedophelia as "bad," and assert that God cannot exist because something so "bad" exists. Then you deny that anything is really "bad". That doesn't make sense. If nothing's bad, paedophelia is not bad: it's' just a contingent phenomenon that happens to exist in our universe, and there is no basis for thinking it means anything about the existence of God or of moral order. After all, as you assert, there IS no objective moral order here.

This now raises an issue we have not discussed so far. Where do you stand? What is your opinion on pedophilia?

Well, let us be clear on that. I think paedophelia is thoroughly evil. But then, I can afford to logically, since I also hold there is an objective moral order that makes it so.

You seem to suggest that there is no reason to accept the supposition " we must do the good of the species". Well, then what must we do?

If there are no objective realities to morals, then there is absolutely nothing we "must do." We can simply do as we please, no matter how wicked that thing may be. And why not? After all, then there's no reality to any claim we shouldn't. Provided we believe we can escape any present consequences (which we often can) and provided we're willing to take a risk, if there's no Judgment, no reckoning to come, why should we not take advantage of every opportunity to do whatever we want...no matter how "evil" people may say it is? After all, what do they know?

Meanwhile, even if you could (which I think you cannot, at least not in a rational way from your worldview) you would be now making an argument for the paedophelia of all young women of fertile age, and the turning of all adult women into breeding stock.

Now I seriously think you do not read what I read. I don't understand how you made the jump to me supporting pedophilia or turning women into breeding stock.

Because you made "survival of the species" the value that grounds your judgments. In that case, whatever contributes most to that goal automatically becomes the highest good. The species thrives on reproduction, and "survival" is a minimal goal that allows any sort of social arrangement that promotes that.

I'm just suggesting where that logic goes. I'm not suggesting you're personally willing to follow it there. In fact, I really trust you are not.

You seem to have forgotten hardwiring.

No, it's simply irrelevant to the moral question. That we may be "hardwired" to do certain things or not do others does not tell us whether or not it's okay to overcome the hardwiring. And clearly we can.

Animals have "hardwiring." But they cannot overcome theirs, so far as we can tell. So they don't have any morality either. We don't hold them to moral standards, because they are "hardwired." But you and I are talking about human beings; and human beings can overcome programming. They can make choices about their moral conduct. And so they can have ethics.

Then you have not a single basis for complaint against the belief in God. Nothing's wrong with the world, just as I said earlier. Even false belief in God is not "wrong," for no such thing as "wrong" exists. And we have solved your anxieties on that point.

Now if you assume God exists, you also have to assume that these words exist and have meaning. In such a case, if God designed the world to be violent , then by the same rules created by religion, there is no option but to call the system designed by God to be evil.

Not so. As I said earlier, if God can have sufficient reason for allowing something evil to exist, then your argument fails. You would need to show that God can have NO sufficient reason for allowing any evil.

And by the way, this is the point I was trying to make which you for some reason thought had something to do with hinduism, which prompted me to believe that you really do not read everything I write.

I see now that I was simply moving too fast with the discussion. I was moving on to logical corollaries of your view you had not yet seen were necessary. This led you to believe I was "not reading" some parts of it, whereas the truth is that I've been down this road before, so it's easy for me to forget not to skip steps that seem obvious to me.

However, I'm happy to slow down, and I apologize for skipping. I'll go more sequentially. If you think I missed something you really need for your argument, please point it out and I'll address it.

Now the other problem here is that you have not stated what kind of God you believe in. So I have to assume certain things. So till you clarify the kind of God you believe in, there is little I can do to debate with you, because you will simply judge my statements against your beliefs which I do not know about and call them wrong.

I can do this. But there's a step we need to do first, or the next step won't make sense to you. First, we have to settle whether or not you think things like paedophelia are wrong; and if you do, why.

You might say, "I my worldview, there are no wrongs." Okay, but if you say nothing's "wrong," then of course you've just given up your earlier case against God. For as a Theist, as you note above, I have no problem saying paedophelia is thoroughly wrong: but you're incorrect to suppose that that means God has to be approving of it. In fact, it means the opposite. You've made at least two "steps," two tacit assumptions, that you are not aware of:

1. That if X phenomenon exists, only God can be its cause. (i.e. All Theists must be Calvinists or Determinists)

2. That God can have no sufficient reason for allowing any evil.

Both are simply incorrect, as we can show. But without them, your case against God crumbles.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not, actually. Rather, I'm challenging the view that morality is a non-objective property, whether that assertion is made by a Hindu or an Atheist. It's just not rational either way, I believe.

Okay. And what is your argument in support of your challenge?

Many. But let's start with one: your own language. Without realizing you were doing it, you employed an objective moral judgment in order to indict the concept of God. You used paedophelia as an exemplar of something you think we Theists should find untenable to have in the world if God exists.

But why should we, unless you already know that paedophelia is wrong? In fact, I submit to you that that is the very reason you chose it as your example: you wanted to refer to something you believed that all people should find definitely "wrong." And if you didn't believe that, then you had presented no challenge at all to Theists.

We all use value-laden language. But every time we do, we actually appeal to morally objective standards, even though we may not realize we do.

So let me ask you a different way: do you think Atheism (of your sort) is "good" or "better" or "preferable" to Theism? You see, if you do, you either appealed to objective standards, or you didn't mean anything by what you said.

To put it another way, either you meant something like "we all should be Atheists," or "You philosophers should become Atheists, " or "You philosophers should not be Theists." If you did not mean to assert a "should" for us, then you just meant "I like Atheism," which isn't an argument but a statement of taste on your part, so there's no more discussion to follow: you "like Atheism" -- we might respond, so what? It merely becomes a statement of the order "I like ice cream," a private taste claim nobody needs to dispute because it's so trivial and personal, and not in any way universal or obligatory for anyone else.

But I don't want to tell you which you meant. So I guess I should ask you to clear that up: do you have a moral issue with the idea of God, or are you saying it's just fine for Theists to believe in it?

[Skip]

We all use value-laden language. But every time we do, we actually appeal to morally objective standards, even though we may not realize we do.

What's objective about our moral standards?
We use the ones our cultures have taught us, and they are also embedded in our various languages. Paedophelia may not be a crime in every country or a disapproved practice in every cultural tradition, but sthitapragya uses his/her own moral reference points. In the majority of modern civilized nations, these are also the mainstream legal tenets, presumed principles and generally-held sentiments.

All that means is, all or most civilizations have come to the conclusion that some individual drives and desires, if allowed free rein, are detrimental to the polity, and have enshrined interdicts in their moral, legal and religious canons.
It's nothing to do with a god, or belief in a god. A great many religions have condoned and/or mandated child abuse of various kinds.

[Immanuel Can]

We all use value-laden language. But every time we do, we actually appeal to morally objective standards, even though we may not realize we do.

What's objective about our moral standards?

I didn't SAY your moral standards are objective...What I said was that we all use language AS IF they are. (Now, that being said, I think the real moral standards ARE objective, but I was speaking of his use of language, not of that particular fact.)

Let me ask you. You claim to be a social relativist -- that's what your objection indicates, anyway. Would you actually say you believe that paedophelia is "wrong" in your own personal social context, but in the context of, say a conservative Muslim in Yemen, is actually "right"? Is that your view?

Just asking.

[Skip]

Let me ask you. You claim to be a social relativist -- that's what your objection indicates, anyway.

I didn't claim anything. Your assumption is your assumption.

Would you actually say you believe that paedophelia is "wrong" in your own personal social context,

Yes.

but in the context of, say a conservative Muslim in Yemen, is actually "right"? Is that your view?

That's not my view.

[Immanuel Can]

Would you actually say you believe that paedophelia is "wrong" in your own personal social context,

Yes.

So far so good. I agree.

but in the context of, say a conservative Muslim in Yemen, is actually "right"? Is that your view?

That's not my view.

Okay, then you need to say what is. Is the Yemeni Muslim "wrong" or "right'?

Of course, his society approves of his paedophelia. So let's see how you work out your social relativism: what do you say about the Yemeni's actions, and why?

[Skip]

Okay, then you need to say what is.

Actually, I feel no such need. Perhaps you need me to say something that fits into your predetermined argument, which is entirely unrelated to what I intended to say.

Is the Yemeni Muslim "wrong" or "right'?

As far as I'm concerned, all Muslims are wrong about religion (just as all Christians and Jews are) but are also wrong about some other things and right about some things. I don't know any of them well enough to determine how wrong and right each one is about which things.

Of course, his society approves of his paedophelia.

Are you sure that's in Yemeni law?

So let's see how you work out your social relativism: what do you say about the Yemeni's actions, and why?

Which Yemeni? What did he do? When? To whom? Where is the evidence?
Are you seriously asking me to make a judgment on such a tissue?

[sthitapragya]

A dichotomy refers to a two-polarity distinction: good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, true vs. false, and so on. Ethics is concerned with such distinctions: it asks what makes one thing "better" or "worse" than another, or one thing "good" and another "bad."

I'm just pointing out to you that you say there are no moral/ethical standards. But your language continuously draws on dichotomies. You make value judgments constantly, then claim there are no objective values. You cannot logically have it both ways.

I maintain that there are no moral or ethical STANDARDS. There are only subjective morals and ethics. Each person decides their own morals and ethics based no their experiences, their environment, character and so on. To survive on earth one has to draw comparisons. It is inevitable. Apple= good. Poison oak=bad. And these comparisons get more sophisticated. Deciding whether something is good for me, better for me or bad for me does not mean I am deciding that those things are 'right' or 'wrong'. I am simply concluding that those things are bad or good for ME. What you are doing is correlating everything with right and wrong. And that is just not how it works. It is not black and white. Something might be good for you and bad for me. Take peanuts for example. Good for me, bad for a guy with allergies. That doesn't make peanuts wrong.

A particularly clear case is when you first indict paedophelia as "bad," and assert that God cannot exist because something so "bad" exists. Then you deny that anything is really "bad". That doesn't make sense. If nothing's bad, paedophelia is not bad: it's' just a contingent phenomenon that happens to exist in our universe, and there is no basis for thinking it means anything about the existence of God or of moral order. After all, as you assert, there IS no objective moral order here.

Nope. I am simply insisting that if an intelligent being, who told us specifically that certain things were right, wrong and evil, designed this world, then by his standards, paedophilia is evil and therefore His allowing it to happen is an evil act by him.

Because you made "survival of the species" the value that grounds your judgments. In that case, whatever contributes most to that goal automatically becomes the highest good. The species thrives on reproduction, and "survival" is a minimal goal that allows any sort of social arrangement that promotes that.

I did no such thing. "survival of the species" is one of the values that figure in my judgement. It is not an absolute. There are no absolute. Even survival of the species might be compromised by me in certain conditions. Each event in life requires different judgments. It is only when absolutes are derived that you can come to conclusions like using females as breeding stock. What you claim is an automatic conclusion is a ridiculous one for me to arrive at.

No, it's simply irrelevant to the moral question. That we may be "hardwired" to do certain things or not do others does not tell us whether or not it's okay to overcome the hardwiring. And clearly we can.

Maybe we will keep that for a different discussion.

Animals have "hardwiring." But they cannot overcome theirs, so far as we can tell. So they don't have any morality either. We don't hold them to moral standards, because they are "hardwired." But you and I are talking about human beings; and human beings can overcome programming. They can make choices about their moral conduct. And so they can have ethics.

Ditto.

we have to settle whether or not you think things like paedophelia are wrong; and if you do, why.

You are asking the wrong question.

A pedophile will say pedophilia is right. You will say pedophilia is wrong. He will say you are wrong.

You are wrong. He is wrong. Who is right?

You might say, "I my worldview, there are no wrongs." Okay, but if you say nothing's "wrong," then of course you've just given up your earlier case against God. For as a Theist, as you note above, I have no problem saying paedophelia is thoroughly wrong: but you're incorrect to suppose that that means God has to be approving of it. In fact, it means the opposite. You've made at least two "steps," two tacit assumptions, that you are not aware of:

1. That if X phenomenon exists, only God can be its cause. (i.e. All Theists must be Calvinists or Determinists)

2. That God can have no sufficient reason for allowing any evil.

Both are simply incorrect, as we can show. But without them, your case against God crumbles.

No I have not. There is no right and wrong. But if God created this world, then He also gave us commands as to what is right, wrong and evil. Those are absolutes. And He has to lead by example. If He commits evil and tells us not to, He is expecting too much of us. Even our children would not obey what we said if we told them not to do something and did it ourselves.

So God has to lead by example. He has no excuses for allowing evil because He forbids it.

Why do you think so much killing goes on in the name of religion? God forbids it. Thou shalt not kill. But he does it anyway. So people think, well, he does it. So He probably didn't mean it exactly like that. And they do it. Killing is forbidden by God. It is an absolute.It is not Thou shalt not kill under certain conditions. It is Thou shalt not kill. period. But even devout followers break the rule and justify their actions simply because He did not lead by example.

let me clarify that when I say so much killing goes on in the name of religion, it does not mean I blame religion for killing. Even people who have no religion kill. So please do not assume I am blaming theists for killing. I am not.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you seriously asking me to make a judgment on such a tissue?

Yes. Now, stop running and answer, if you dare.

But you won't. Because you can't. You'll end up showing yourself either willing to sanction paedophelia,or not a social relativist at all.

And here's what we find out from that: without objective morals, there are no morals that can apply. You can't solve this paradox. And it's only one of many such paradoxes.

[Skip]

Yes. Now, stop running and answer, if you dare.

I will answer a question that has substance. I will not answer your made-up scenario of an imaginary ?man who may or may not have committed an unspecified ?crime that is allegedly approved-of by a culture with which i am unfamiliar.

But you won't. Because you can't.

Obviously. There is nothing real to answer.

You'll end up showing yourself either willing to sanction paedophelia,or not a social relativist at all.

I never said I was a social relativist; you did. I merely explained why people in modern civilizations automatically use the language of disapprobation regarding acts and attitudes that their society traditionally forbids.
I don't use the word 'sanction' because it has several meanings, all outside of my purview as a private citizen. My unwillingness to approve of pedophilia (which, in any case, is an undefined term) is not at issue.

A

And here's what we find out from that: without objective morals, there are no morals that can apply. You can't solve this paradox. And it's only one of many such paradoxes.

'We' find out nothing. You reiterate your original statement and consider it proven by repetition. Which astonishes nobody.
There is no paradox and there are no objective morals. There are many rules and standards of behaviour that work and make sense in most or all social groups, from a pack of wolves to a herd of elephants, from a village of fisher-folk to a city of Russians. Some rules and standards work in specific environments and situations, but make no sense in others. Many rules and standards for human behaviour are arbitrarily imposed by religious or political elites, and make no sense in any situation.