Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:04 pm
You can already see how impossible that is, B, if you only think about it for one second. Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. But if it’s the latter, then there is no objective reality to morality at all, and never can be. But if it’s the first, then both morality and salvation exist, and it matters a great deal what we think about that.

But the complete nonsense, the absolute twaddle, is to suppose that man can “create” or “cause” God to exist. Man has no such ability. All he could do is deceive himself — about God, about morality, and about his own origins and duty. That, surely, must be obvious to you.


Then you are only saying that it is man’s “need” to delude himself; and how can self-delusion be a “need” or a good thing, when it departs so radically from the truth of reality as you believe it to be?


Then we are very great fools indeed. For you are saying that we imagine we have a “need” for the unreal, then we generate it, then we believe it makes rules incumbent upon us. We’re imaginers of both God and the moral.

Your account merely warrants that any sensible person, any realistic person, or any person who wishes to take the best advantage of how reality actually is, should dismiss both completely, as soon as he or she possibly can. The rest of the fools can continue to believe if they want, but the savvy must divest themselves of all such illusions, and live “beyond good and evil.”

Just as Nietzsche told you.

But Nietzsche knows better now. Make sure you learn earlier than he did the folly of that perspective.

I see how you feel.

It’s not about “feelings,” B. “Feelings” are quite irrelevant to this. It’s about what’s true, obvious and logical.

"Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. "

There is yet another option .

*A deity wittingly designed and is the witting origin of man and the universe .

*Human beings are ,as you say, not eternal and so cannot be the original cause.

*Nature unwittingly designed mankind and the universe.

What’s this third option, of which you speak? You’ve still only listed two different things. The first and the second are completely compatible, and, I suggest, both true, as well. So what’s the other possibility?

Without a genuine third, we’re back to the same two options: either God designed man, or Nature, which has no “wit” about these things, did it by accident. But if the second were the case, morality is excluded anyway.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:04 pm
You can already see how impossible that is, B, if you only think about it for one second. Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. But if it’s the latter, then there is no objective reality to morality at all, and never can be. But if it’s the first, then both morality and salvation exist, and it matters a great deal what we think about that.

But the complete nonsense, the absolute twaddle, is to suppose that man can “create” or “cause” God to exist. Man has no such ability. All he could do is deceive himself — about God, about morality, and about his own origins and duty. That, surely, must be obvious to you.


Then you are only saying that it is man’s “need” to delude himself; and how can self-delusion be a “need” or a good thing, when it departs so radically from the truth of reality as you believe it to be?


Then we are very great fools indeed. For you are saying that we imagine we have a “need” for the unreal, then we generate it, then we believe it makes rules incumbent upon us. We’re imaginers of both God and the moral.

Your account merely warrants that any sensible person, any realistic person, or any person who wishes to take the best advantage of how reality actually is, should dismiss both completely, as soon as he or she possibly can. The rest of the fools can continue to believe if they want, but the savvy must divest themselves of all such illusions, and live “beyond good and evil.”

Just as Nietzsche told you.

But Nietzsche knows better now. Make sure you learn earlier than he did the folly of that perspective.

I see how you feel. "Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. "

There is yet another option .

*A deity wittingly designed and is the witting origin of man and the universe .

*Human beings are ,as you say, not eternal and so cannot be the original cause.

*Nature unwittingly designed mankind and the universe.

Why did you respond as if there's any reason, any meaning there Belinda?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:38 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:00 pm

I see how you feel. "Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. "

There is yet another option .

*A deity wittingly designed and is the witting origin of man and the universe .

*Human beings are ,as you say, not eternal and so cannot be the original cause.

*Nature unwittingly designed mankind and the universe.

Why did you respond as if there's any reason, any meaning there Belinda?

Because I enjoy exercising my brainmind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:01 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 10:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 1:48 pm
The problem is that there is then no objectively-real “good” or “bad.” Our “human nature” is just whatever Nature made it to be; no more, no less, no other than that. One has no longer any objective basis to deplore or laud, to praise or blame, our actions.

A person can always say, "I would not want that done to me.”

But so what? I would “want" a billion dollars, and nobody gives it to me. What does what I “want” get me?

Now, whether someone else honors that statement and doesn't do something to us that we would not want done to us is another matter, and one that can only be resolved by courts and juries.

But wait: on what basis?

Even if you have a court, what justification does that court have to say, “Mr X., you did to Gary something Gary wouldn’t want. Thus, we are justified and just to sentence you to…”what? What is the justifiable penalty for failing to give somebody what he “wants,” or for doing to him something he “didn’t want done to him”?

Morality doesn't magically disappear because there is no God.

You’ve got it backwards. If there had been no God, morality would never have appeared in the first place. Now that we’ve "magically disappeared" God, what’s the basis left for morality? There needs to be a secular explanation for what is asserted by you, me and our societies, including our justice systems, for what is just, fair and right; but what would such an explanation be?

As long as there are human beings there is morality.

Again, it’s the other way around. Historically, “moralities” appear in conjunction with religious belief. So do all our law codes, and our conceptions of duty and obligation. There are no ancient societies of Atheists. Atheism, a late-bloom on our scene, neither contains a rationale for any morality nor can now fabricate one. And you can see that’s true: one cannot NOW even explain even one single precept, one single commandment, one single imperative that any Atheist is objectively obligated to do or not do.

I have often put that challenge to Atheists, and have never found one yet who could meet it. But if you think you can achieve what they could not, then I’m game to hear what you think it would be.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:38 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:33 pm
Why did you respond as if there's any reason, any meaning there Belinda?

Because I enjoy exercising my brainmind.

Yeah, but there isn't any reason in what was said.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:46 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:38 pm
Because I enjoy exercising my brainmind.

Yeah, but there isn't any reason in what was said.

Have I been too concise again? Please tell me which point I should elucudate?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:00 pm

I see how you feel.

It’s not about “feelings,” B. “Feelings” are quite irrelevant to this. It’s about what’s true, obvious and logical.

"Human beings are not eternal. They cannot be the ultimate cause of their own origin, far less of whatever uncaused Entity commenced the existence of human beings in the first place. You’re then left with two simple options: believe that God created man, or believe that man is a cosmic accident. "

There is yet another option .

*A deity wittingly designed and is the witting origin of man and the universe .

*Human beings are ,as you say, not eternal and so cannot be the original cause.

*Nature unwittingly designed mankind and the universe.

What’s this third option, of which you speak? You’ve still only listed two different things. The first and the second are completely compatible, and, I suggest, both true, as well. So what’s the other possibility?

Without a genuine third, we’re back to the same two options: either God designed man, or Nature, which has no “wit” about these things, did it by accident. But if the second were the case, morality is excluded anyway.

Nature is not accidental but deterministic at least on the level where we live our lives.

Every natural event including the advent of men who worship their gods was a necessary event.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:01 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 10:22 pm

A person can always say, "I would not want that done to me.”

But so what? I would “want" a billion dollars, and nobody gives it to me. What does what I “want” get me?

Now, whether someone else honors that statement and doesn't do something to us that we would not want done to us is another matter, and one that can only be resolved by courts and juries.

But wait: on what basis?

Even if you have a court, what justification does that court have to say, “Mr X., you did to Gary something Gary wouldn’t want. Thus, we are justified and just to sentence you to…”what? What is the justifiable penalty for failing to give somebody what he “wants,” or for doing to him something he “didn’t want done to him”?

Morality doesn't magically disappear because there is no God.

You’ve got it backwards. If there had been no God, morality would never have appeared in the first place. Now that we’ve "magically disappeared" God, what’s the basis left for morality? There needs to be a secular explanation for what is asserted by you, me and our societies, including our justice systems, for what is just, fair and right; but what would such an explanation be?

As long as there are human beings there is morality.

Again, it’s the other way around. Historically, “moralities” appear in conjunction with religious belief. So do all our law codes, and our conceptions of duty and obligation. There are no ancient societies of Atheists. Atheism, a late-bloom on our scene, neither contains a rationale for any morality nor can now fabricate one. And you can see that’s true: one cannot NOW even explain even one single precept, one single commandment, one single imperative that any Atheist is objectively obligated to do or not do.

I have often put that challenge to Atheists, and have never found one yet who could meet it. But if you think you can achieve what they could not, then I’m game to hear what you think it would be.

There is no such person as an atheist, objectively speaking. 'Atheist'is word that has changed its meaning so much that it's a word which makes sense only within a context. Therefore what you, Immanuel, have to say concerning "atheists" is circular.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:28 pm
It’s not about “feelings,” B. “Feelings” are quite irrelevant to this. It’s about what’s true, obvious and logical.


What’s this third option, of which you speak? You’ve still only listed two different things. The first and the second are completely compatible, and, I suggest, both true, as well. So what’s the other possibility?

Without a genuine third, we’re back to the same two options: either God designed man, or Nature, which has no “wit” about these things, did it by accident. But if the second were the case, morality is excluded anyway.

Nature is not accidental but deterministic at least on the level where we live our lives.

The opposite is actually true: there has not been one person in history who has been able to live for even one day, or even five minutes, as if Determinism were true. NOBODY actually “lives their lives” deterministically. Nobody. Determinism is a completely empty, completely impractical supposition.

Moreover, there can never be evidence for Determinism, because Determinism itself insists that people do not believe things because those things are true, but only because Nature predetermined everybody to believe those things. The most ardent Determinists (according to Determinism) only believe in Determinism because Nature fated them to do so. What they believe, be they scientists or the purely superstitious, is only, always because Nature predetermined them to think what they think — never because it was true.

Every natural event including the advent of men who worship their gods was a necessary event.

That won’t help you with morality. If Determinism were true, then nobody can help doing whatever it is they do. Hitler killed because he had to. People are raped because Nature predetermined them to be. Slavery is inevitable. So are elections, wars, genocides, murders…all are merely predetermined to take place. And you can’t blame the predetermined perpetrators for doing them, because they had no choice. Maybe they wouldn’t have raped, murdered or stolen if they had had any choice: but they didn’t.

All those things would follow logically from Determinism.

So it’s a very good thing nobody actually lives as if Determinism were true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 5:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:01 am
But so what? I would “want" a billion dollars, and nobody gives it to me. What does what I “want” get me?

But wait: on what basis?

Even if you have a court, what justification does that court have to say, “Mr X., you did to Gary something Gary wouldn’t want. Thus, we are justified and just to sentence you to…”what? What is the justifiable penalty for failing to give somebody what he “wants,” or for doing to him something he “didn’t want done to him”?

You’ve got it backwards. If there had been no God, morality would never have appeared in the first place. Now that we’ve "magically disappeared" God, what’s the basis left for morality? There needs to be a secular explanation for what is asserted by you, me and our societies, including our justice systems, for what is just, fair and right; but what would such an explanation be?


Again, it’s the other way around. Historically, “moralities” appear in conjunction with religious belief. So do all our law codes, and our conceptions of duty and obligation. There are no ancient societies of Atheists. Atheism, a late-bloom on our scene, neither contains a rationale for any morality nor can now fabricate one. And you can see that’s true: one cannot NOW even explain even one single precept, one single commandment, one single imperative that any Atheist is objectively obligated to do or not do.

I have often put that challenge to Atheists, and have never found one yet who could meet it. But if you think you can achieve what they could not, then I’m game to hear what you think it would be.

There is no such person as an atheist, objectively speaking. 'Atheist'is word that has changed its meaning so much that it's a word which makes sense only within a context. Therefore what you, Immanuel, have to say concerning "atheists" is circular.

You’re wrong, actually. The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.” Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:02 am I’m only quoting exactly what Belinda quoted, which was exactly what Jesus Christ Himself said. If you have an issue with that, you have an issue with Jesus Christ.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:15 pm The term “Atheist” is actually quite precise, and contains its own definition: “a-“ is the Greek particle of negation, and “theos” means “God/one of the gods.”  Anybody, regardless of other particulars, who insists there are no gods of any kind is an “Atheist.”

So that’s my definition, and it’s the same as the meaning of the word.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:52 pm The only one of the 10 commandments I haven't broken is "Thou shalt not kill [another human being]." All the others I've transgressed at least once or twice. I would have said I've observed "Thou shalt not steal" but I think I stole from a kid when I was younger who used to steal from me all the time. I can't remember any other blatant examples of stealing.

And then, of course, there are Catholicism's 7 "deadly sins". I've probably abused all those as much as can be abused.

Now my life seems to be a living hell. I suspect that there is no afterlife and that the point of all the commandments and deadly sins is to prevent inordinate suffering in this life. But they tell people there's an afterlife, as though criminals who had good lives will suffer in the afterlife or good people who lived miserably will live in bliss in the afterlife. Give me a break. What bullshit. Who are the clergy kidding. They don't know shit about what happens after we die. The world is a crap shoot (in more ways than one). Anything can happen to anyone. Stop lying and telling people there's an afterlife. There's no evidence for it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 9:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:52 pm The only one of the 10 commandments I haven't broken is "Thou shalt not kill [another human being]." All the others I've transgressed at least once or twice. I would have said I've observed "Thou shalt not steal" but I think I stole from a kid when I was younger who used to steal from me all the time. I can't remember any other blatant examples of stealing.

And then, of course, there are Catholicism's 7 "deadly sins". I've probably abused all those as much as can be abused.

Now my life seems to be a living hell. I suspect that there is no afterlife and that the point of all the commandments and deadly sins is to prevent inordinate suffering in this life. But they tell people there's an afterlife, as though criminals who had good lives will suffer in the afterlife or good people who lived miserably will live in bliss in the afterlife. Give me a break. What bullshit. Who are the clergy kidding. They don't know shit about what happens after we die. The world is a crap shoot (in more ways than one). Anything can happen to anyone. Stop lying and telling people there's an afterlife. There's no evidence for it.

There is certainly no afterlife. Once you are dead that's it forever. This doesn't matter to the deceased as they don't know they are dead.

You sound angry about the clergy and I quite understand how you feel. The clergy have to earn their livings and there are a few who have spoken for a reasonable faith that intelligent people can trust. Perhaps surprisingly the clergymen kept their jobs. You may feel at home in a Unitarian church, Gary.

One of the problems clergy have is trying to please each member of their congregation which may be made up of educated and uneducated and stages between.

Feeling guilty does no good to man or beast. Same as everyone else Gary you are not Jesus Christ . Remorse can be useful as long as one does not become overwhelmed by it forever.