A Godless World

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

After reading the quoted material in the Ignorance thread, I feel a godless world needs to be explored

Without a first cause/sufficient cause, as Aristotle noted, as premise and grounding for cause and effect, we are left with irrational alternatives - infinite regress, effects caused by nothing or effects causing themselves.

I see nothing unacceptable in those irrational alternatives. It certainly makes things easier to a a first cause/sufficient cause, and the alternatives would be counter-intuitive, but nothing irrational.

Without libertarian free will (and a sufficient source to ground it), we are left logically incapable of discerning true statements from false and reason itself falls into ruin.

If you exist in the system, nothing can be "proved" unless you go out of the system, which you can't, at least of the moment. So, absolute truth, at least IMO, is fleeting at best.

Without an objective good which morality serves to describe in terms of human "oughts', we are left with a subjective good where anything goes and ultimately only might makes right (argument from morality).

If "God" has ultimate sovereignty, morality is based on whatever "God" wants it to be; he could make eating "fish and chips" immoral and punished by eternal torment and make eating "fish then chips" moral and the sole basis for eternal bliss.

If the moral code is above "God" and he is just a messenger and not sovereign.

See this - http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post835773

Saying "ultimately might makes right" (technically it could be viewed "God" doing that) leaves Man no room to grow. It assumes no social reciprocity or Man not genuinely caring for his neighbor without a deity.

Without a creative mind deliberately ordering the universe, we are left without sufficient explanation for the fine-tuning of the cosmos (the fine-tuning argument).

Because Man can't do anything for himself. Science can't come up with something an refine it over time.

Without a fundamental grounds for logic/reason, we are left with no reason to expect the universe to be discoverable via human reason, or to hold reason as a meaningful arbiter of true statements.

I already do not "hold reason as a meaningful arbiter of true statements" not because I don't believe in your "God", but because I take Godel to the level of reality and say, "The only way to prove the system is to be outside the system." (Yes, I would say that even God cannot prove God.)

See - http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...tml#post836075

In short, without the fundamental theistic premise,

In short, you seem to assume too much.

... logic becomes nothing more than a form of will-to-power rhetoric

It already is.

, where "right" and "wrong", and "true" and "false" are arbited by the might of local, physical material;

I'd change "local, physical material" with "society", "cultural" and have liberty with the connotation of the word "might"....then it already is.

... we have no expectation of the free will capacity to objectively discern true statements from false

Already can't

, nor any reason to hold ourselves or others sufficiently responsible for their actions or thoughts;

Harming others, that's a good reason for holding people responsible, as for thoughts, we do have RICO but, I'd say shouldn't until it becomes action (I can perceive the consequences of that logic, and will accept them).

..... we must accept chance as a sufficient grounding for fine-tuning, design, and ultimately all things; we must accept an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence;

So, point? I can, and already do, accept that.

...we must accept that all values, views and beliefs are essentially equivalent expressions of physical matter in motion.

I'm good with brain chemistry doing that.

Only theism offers the opportunity to have a rationally consistent, properly grounded...

Of course, if you don't ground things on "God', it's obviously not properly grounded.

... and warranted worldview that is anything other than essentially mindless materials simply interacting for a while, producing whatever effects they produce, and then slowly succumbing to the heat death of entropic doom, reducing all arguments to nothing but the rhetoric of happenstance interacting molecules.

And what is so, for lack of better words, "wrong" with that. The universe being random is valid worldview that you refuse to accept. Just like the universe being designed is a valid worldview. Validity does not equate to correctness. I will admit, a random universe is hard for the human creature to accept. Assuming "God" does exists and you are correct as you outlined, the only thing different in a godless world would be the absence of "God" and a different basis.

[Jack]

I live in a godless world and I don't rape, steal, kill or do anything very different than my very Catholic neighbor except spend my Sundays doing things around the house. In real world terms there's very little difference between the lives of those who believe and those who do not.

[barts]

All of the arguments for God, including

Quote by: Meleagar View Post
Without a first cause/sufficient cause, as Aristotle noted, as premise and grounding for cause and effect, we are left with irrational alternatives - infinite regress, effects caused by nothing or effects causing themselves.

don't give any credence to the sort of God that Christians and others claim.

The question I find interesting is what is the least necessary 'god' to cause creation. The answer may be nothing more than an infinitesimal momentary disturbance (The Butterfly Effect) in space/time. God is a disturbance and nothing more.

It's odd to hear people say that on one hand 'there needs to be god', and then on the other hand say, in effect, 'therefore it must be the Christian God that I was taught about.'

[Anguspure]

I live in a godless world

God (YHWH) is a little bit sceptical of your claim. As for your claim of autonomous moral behaviour:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)

I think your creator might be a trifle sceptical of that too.

[Jack]

God (YHWH) is a little bit sceptical of your claim.

Someone told me that Batman is pissed I don't think he's real. I'm not too concerned.

I think your creator might be a trifle sceptical of that too.

My parents are both dead, well past being skeptical.

Quote for quote:

The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law. This is so because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and various particular goods (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The good and goods provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us given the natures that we have (ST Ia 5, 1), the good and these various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is.

The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice. Aquinas takes it that there is a core of practical knowledge that all human beings have, even if the implications of that knowledge can be hard to work out or the efficacy of that knowledge can be thwarted by strong emotion or evil dispositions (ST IaIIae 94, 6).

The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(A hint: I'm not impressed with Biblical passages, either)

[shunyadragon]

I see nothing unacceptable in those irrational alternatives. It certainly makes things easier to a a first cause/sufficient cause, and the alternatives would be counter-intuitive, but nothing irrational.

Justified.

If you exist in the system, nothing can be "proved" unless you go out of the system, which you can't, at least of the moment. So, absolute truth, at least IMO, is fleeting at best.

Absolute truth from the human perspective is not fleeting, it does not exist.

If "God" has ultimate sovereignty, morality is based on whatever "God" wants it to be; he could make eating "fish and chips" immoral and punished by eternal torment and make eating "fish then chips" moral and the sole basis for eternal bliss.

If the moral code is above "God" and he is just a messenger and not sovereign.

The human perspective if too frail and faulty for such things to be meaningful.

It already is.

Good response!!!!

Saying "ultimately might makes right" (technically it could be viewed "God" doing that) leaves Man no room to grow. It assumes no social reciprocity or Man not genuinely caring for his neighbor without a deity.

Too anthropomorphic in the human perspective to be meaningful.



I already do not "hold reason as a meaningful arbiter of true statements" not because I don't believe in your "God", but because I take Godel to the level of reality and say, "The only way to prove the system is to be outside the system." (Yes, I would say that even God cannot prove God.) [/quote]

Godel hit it on the money. IF God exists, god simply exists as the 'Source' of anything regardless. IF God does not exist, than simply God does not exist. No proof applies.

I am a Baha'i and a theist, and consider the only viable option of a God, is the 'Source of everything,' not definable by human logic, justified by ancient arguments. IF God exists, God simply exists, ultimately beyond human comprehension.

As far our universe and the physical existence we experience is as it is, and can neither be argued successfully as Godless, nor created by the 'Source.'

An argument for or against the existence of god(s), would have to trash all of the above and start over. I do consider the th atheist/agnostic view a very viable choice for the reality of our existence.

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

It's odd to hear people say that on one hand 'there needs to be god', and then on the other hand say, in effect, 'therefore it must be the Christian God that I was taught about.'

I always appreciate that of Christian theologians (formal and lay).

[Sigma_Tau_Theta]

Absolute truth from the human perspective is not fleeting, it does not exist.

I believe that, I just wanted to leave room for possible error.

Godel hit it on the money. IF God exists, god simply exists as the 'Source' of anything regardless. IF God does not exist, than simply God does not exist. No proof applies.

To apply Godel to God would be more on lines of, IMO, "God exists within the system that is God's reality, to prove God, you would have to go outside God's reality." Basically, Godel is against most self-reference.

I am a Baha'i and a theist, and consider the only viable option of a God, is the 'Source of everything,' not definable by human logic, justified by ancient arguments. IF God exists, God simply exists, ultimately beyond human comprehension.

I could be okay with that actually.

As far our universe and the physical existence we experience is as it is, and can neither be argued successfully as Godless, nor created by the 'Source.'

Agreed

I do consider the atheist/agnostic view a very viable choice for the reality of our existence.

I see atheism having the same problems as theism. I prefer ignostic/theological noncognitivism but can settle for agnostic atheist as a label

[Jack]

ignostic/theological noncognitivism

You must be kidding. As it is I misspell atheist half the time I type it.

[R.F.]

I find it amusing that by mentioning some prominent philosophers name in a statement, one is expected to give more credit to the arrogance of the idea. The argument is, at bottom, it is irrational to assume an event can happen without a source or cause. This presupposes there can be origins that don’t require origins. This quite openly voids the idea. It says-

“There must be a God, because it’s dumb to think effects can happen without cause”

This is only true if you think God himself is of no origin or cause.

Freewill- The idea we can will to will. Makes perfect sense… For one to have freewill he must be aware of what he is willing- which means he must be consciously thinking about it. However, one cannot will to think, or to not think- thus some other faculty of the brain is governing thought- we cannot freely will.

Morality- My opinions on morality are provided in the link previously posted [read the original poster]

Fine-tuned universe- Tom foolery! http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...47-chance.html

Have whatever worldview you please, I just hope it’s based in truth and not fables.

I wish we lived in a “godless” world. Unfortunately there are far too many [deities] to easily count. What’s more? All followers think they are right- and everyone else is just dumb or damned.

[shunyadragon]

I find it amusing that by mentioning some prominent philosophers name in a statement, one is expected to give more credit to the arrogance of the idea. The argument is, at bottom, it is irrational to assume an event can happen without a source or cause. This presupposes there can be origins that don’t require origins. This quite openly voids the idea. It says-

“There must be a God, because it’s dumb to think effects can happen without cause”

This is only true if you think God himself is of no origin or cause.

Freewill- The idea we can will to will. Makes perfect sense… For one to have freewill he must be aware of what he is willing- which means he must be consciously thinking about it. However, one cannot will to think, or to not think- thus some other faculty of the brain is governing thought- we cannot freely will.

Morality- My opinions on morality are provided in the link previously posted [read the original poster]

Fine-tuned universe- Tom foolery! http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...47-chance.html

Have whatever worldview you please, I just hope it’s based in truth and not fables.

As a theist and a Baha'i I believe most of the above is a valid argument. Unfortunately any concept of 'truth' is illusive regardless.

I wish we lived in a “godless” world. Unfortunately there are far too many [deities] to easily count. What’s more? All followers think they are right- and everyone else is just dumb or damned.

The generalization does not completely follow. At least the Baha'i Faith does not believe this. Nonetheless based on what you said above,, you apparently believe all theists are just plan dumb or worse.

[Affluence]

This world largely embraces God.

There are 2 billion Christians and 2 billion Muslims. 90% of the populace believes in the supreme being, the creator.

Furthermore our ancestors and forefathers were the same so this world you live in is established and bequeathed to us, to you, by the servants of the lord. And you are welcome to have it. Remember all the prayers, all the toils and struggles it took for us to get here. let us unite all nations with love and friendships for the greater good.Peace.

Affluence8