The believer's paradox

[McCulloch]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes. Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Pray to God for a sign, they sometimes answer, pray to God for wisdom. Yet, even there, I must interpret the signs and test the spirits, according to my own perverted human wisdom.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 60:

I can follow such as "God ain't happy with you Joe". What I can't follow is why His unhappiness would supersede my own, or why I should accept it as more valid than my own happiness. I just don't get this angle that just because He's God I should accept whatever He says.

Presumably, because whether you accept it or not will not effect the outcome.
The logical conclusion of an all knowing, all powerful deity is that everything is part of an overall plan, including individual actions, thoughts, and beliefs...

But why should I consider this plan good? I don't doubt my opinion may not affect the outcome, but I'm not willing to cede my judgment on that fact alone.

...So if every action, thought, and belief is logically part of an overall plan, that would include your own beliefs on whether you think God is actually good and whether you should accept teachings you feel come from God. Given logically whatever you do has already been decided by God, it would be to your own benefit if God graces you with the ability to trust God is, in fact, good. Because if God is not good then you are pretty much screwed.

I can't concern myself with whether God is god, I gotta concern myself with me being good. I can see that if God preordains my opinion I'm bound to it. What happens if I do my thinking for myself?

If you go with the premise that God IS Good, then humans being responsible to one another (generally a good thing) logically follows as being in accordance with what God would like. >with following caveat<

Why am I bound to this premise?

It seems many theists will make such a prerequisite in order to prove their points, but I've yet to see why such should be considered valid.

What binds me to this premise?

>that caveat<
However, regarding deciding what is good for us ourselves, a host of psychological studies and human history in general indicate we are are really bad at doing that in terms of doing what is healthy for ourselves and each other.

I would say the fact that "here we are" indicates we've been able to overcome such conflict.

If you do not go with the premise God is good, you're screwed anyways due to the above reasoning you're under God's control either way.

How can I know I'm under a god's control?

>snip an agreement<

for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend

What if it's not? What if it's a "what you see is what you get" universe?

Then your life will be brief and is objectively meaningless. Even if true, what logical reason could there be to believe that? Especially given it can be no more proven scientifically than the existence of God.

If we claim a god exists because "this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend", then how can we know this is "objectively meaningful"?

Sounds like an argument from incredulity, ignorance, or both.

And scientifically I can use quantum theory to show through thought experiment...

Think of a frog. Think of a frog with wings. Does he bump his butt when he lands?

Thought experiments can be created to support any notion.

And scientifically I can use quantum theory to show through thought experiment the existence of "a" God is highly probable, if not necessarily in our own physical universe or of the form I may personally believe God to be.

Go on and present this "thought experiment", along with what "quantum theory" you think supports it.

What do you personally believe God to be?

[ChaosBorders]

My apologies. I wrote a really long reply, which then got erased by a log in screen. (This is what I get for being a newbie). So I will not be nearly as thorough as I would have liked to be, due to having to go to sleep (about two hours ago).

I can't concern myself with whether God is god, I gotta concern myself with me being good. I can see that if God preordains my opinion I'm bound to it. What happens if I do my thinking for myself?

If your thoughts and opinions are being preordained, you can't think for yourself, because even the belief you are thinking for yourself has been preordained. God or no god, science increasingly supports the notion that free will is a convenient illusion and we don't really "think for ourselves" anyways, so the desire to think independently makes for a poor reason to reject accepting the idea of God having a plan for them.

If you go with the premise that God IS Good, then humans being responsible to one another (generally a good thing) logically follows as being in accordance with what God would like. >with following caveat<

Why am I bound to this premise?

It seems many theists will make such a prerequisite in order to prove their points, but I've yet to see why such should be considered valid.

What binds me to this premise?

Nothing binds you to believing it. BUT, there are two arguments in favor of doing so. One would be the approach that if you've already gone with the premise that God exists and created the universe and everything in it, then God gets to define what good is and logically defines everything God does as being good. I personally think this approach is the most common used by theists, but has a tendency to make God a jerk.

Another approach is defining evil as the absence of good, which if using the premise God exists and created the universe and everything in it automatically makes God good because evil can only definitionally exist where there is a deficiency or lacking in creation.

The first manner you can only argue against using subjective morality. But if you make morality a subjective matter, I can argue that genocide and murder can be good things under certain circumstances. It's a no-win situation.

The second manner can be argued against by not accepting the definition of evil presented. Personally I think it's a good definition that can be defended, but I know some would argue for alternative definitions that would make the second method cease to work.

>that caveat<
However, regarding deciding what is good for us ourselves, a host of psychological studies and human history in general indicate we are are really bad at doing that in terms of doing what is healthy for ourselves and each other.

I would say the fact that "here we are" indicates we've been able to overcome such conflict.

I would say the billions living in poverty and millions dieing of starvation, despite the fact we have more than enough resources to solve the problem (true fact), would beg to differ.

If you do not go with the premise God is good, you're screwed anyways due to the above reasoning you're under God's control either way.

How can I know I'm under a god's control?

You can't. If you accept the premise God exists and is all powerful, it is the logical conclusion. I can make an argument for why it is more reasonable to believe there is a God than to not believe there is one, but I can't prove it any more than an atheist can prove there isn't one, so it ends up a matter of faith either way.

for this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend

What if it's not? What if it's a "what you see is what you get" universe?

Then your life will be brief and is objectively meaningless. Even if true, what logical reason could there be to believe that? Especially given it can be no more proven scientifically than the existence of God.

If we claim a god exists because "this universe is much grander than what we can comprehend", then how can we know this is "objectively meaningful"?

Sounds like an argument from incredulity, ignorance, or both.

I'm not arguing that God exists because of the grandness of the universe. I would make the argument that existence is objectively meaningless if there is no God. I would argue there is no logical reason to believe that life is meaningless when there is no proof that a condition that would give it meaning doesn't exist. Thus, I would argue belief in a God is logical. (I would elaborate, but again, everything got deleted before and I really need to go to bed).

And scientifically I can use quantum theory to show through thought experiment the existence of "a" God is highly probable, if not necessarily in our own physical universe or of the form I may personally believe God to be.

Go on and present this "thought experiment", along with what "quantum theory" you think supports it.

What do you personally believe God to be?

There is quantum theory which suggests an infinite number of realities, which cover every possible physics. In practice, this makes the majority of realities lifeless voids with bits of plasma floating around. But it also means that in an almost infinitesimally small proportion of realities, all-knowing beings of pure energy form Earths in six days and say things like "let there be light".

The scientific suggestion is that in some reality or another, no matter how unlikely you think something is, it DID happen. Does it mean you should teach it in science or history class? No, definitely not. But it does mean people shouldn't go around telling people with faith their ideas are IMPOSSIBLE, because that's simply not true. Unlikely in this given reality, perhaps.

My own view as to the nature of God (very, very summarized) is that God IS Good. As in, (taking the view that evil is good's absence and God created everything) all good is a part of God (who in this view is a singular being of infinite dimensions that due to the infinite dimension nature can be viewed from our perspective as having multiple aspects). From a God side my beliefs are basically a reconciliation of Christianity and deism, with pantheism and some Hindu/ancient Greek ideas on God thrown in. From an existence perspective it's basically the theological equivalent of quantum theory (take the infinite realities proposed by quantum theory, then raise that to an infinite power thanks to an all powerful deity existing outside those realities, and you get existence).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 62:

If your thoughts and opinions are being preordained, you can't think for yourself, because even the belief you are thinking for yourself has been preordained. God or no god, science increasingly supports the notion that free will is a convenient illusion and we don't really "think for ourselves" anyways, so the desire to think independently makes for a poor reason to reject accepting the idea of God having a plan for them.

So I accept God has a plan. Why should I think this plan is good, best, etc.? It seems to me as if you are defining god by what he does, rather than what He is. The problem here is having an entity we can't show exists, and then trying to derive properties for it. How can we confirm your scenario?

What if God is the ultimate cosmic joker, and his plan is for us to follow our own understanding, as oppossed to what religious texts may tell us? How can we know?

If you go with the premise that God IS Good, then humans being responsible to one another (generally a good thing) logically follows as being in accordance with what God would like. >with following caveat<

...What binds me to this premise?

Nothing binds you to believing it. BUT, there are two arguments in favor of doing so. One would be the approach that if you've already gone with the premise that God exists and created the universe and everything in it, then God gets to define what good is and logically defines everything God does as being good...

Just because He created it? I certainly understand the idea of "I made it, I do what I want", but I'm unwilling to let go of my humanity because I've been created. My parents created me, if it's their "plan" that I drown in a flood, am I bound to accept that?

Another approach is defining evil as the absence of good, which if using the premise God exists and created the universe and everything in it automatically makes God good because evil can only definitionally exist where there is a deficiency or lacking in creation. >clarificatin' to follow<

That seems more like an ad hoc definition. If we define God's acts as all good, we're bound to that definition. I don't presuppose this position, but consider God's acts on a case by case basis.

The first manner you can only argue against using subjective morality. But if you make morality a subjective matter, I can argue that genocide and murder can be good things under certain circumstances. It's a no-win situation.

I would argue that all values are subjective. Ask those committing genocide if they're cool with it.

The second manner can be argued against by not accepting the definition of evil presented. Personally I think it's a good definition that can be defended, but I know some would argue for alternative definitions that would make the second method cease to work.

How then can we determine which is correct?

However, regarding deciding what is good for us ourselves, a host of psychological studies and human history in general indicate we are are really bad at doing that in terms of doing what is healthy for ourselves and each other.

I would say the fact that "here we are" indicates we've been able to overcome such conflict.

I would say the billions living in poverty and millions dieing of starvation, despite the fact we have more than enough resources to solve the problem (true fact), would beg to differ.

I think maybe I misunderstand. You seem to indicate humans not quite living up to a given standard means something more than just that. All I see is humans being human. The struggle for life and social status doesn't really indicate which method is best. Is it best I give up any portion of my food to feed another, when such loss of food may risk my own future ability to eat? May, not "will", just may.

If you do not go with the premise God is good, you're screwed anyways due to the above reasoning you're under God's control either way.

How can I know I'm under a god's control?

You can't. If you accept the premise God exists and is all powerful, it is the logical conclusion...

Why is it not just as logical to think this God is not under control. Given the lack of verifiable evidence God is in control, ain't it more logical to think he ain't?

I can make an argument for why it is more reasonable to believe there is a God than to not believe there is one, but I can't prove it any more than an atheist can prove there isn't one, so it ends up a matter of faith either way.

Logic relies on the strength of its premises. In all your premises, you've already declared a god to exist, and you "if" your conclusion into place with your premises.

I'm not arguing that God exists because of the grandness of the universe. I would make the argument that existence is objectively meaningless if there is no God. I would argue there is no logical reason to believe that life is meaningless when there is no proof that a condition that would give it meaning doesn't exist. Thus, I would argue belief in a God is logical. (I would elaborate, but again, everything got deleted before and I really need to go to bed).

Breaking that down...

I'm not arguing that God exists because of the grandness of the universe. I would make the argument that existence is objectively meaningless if there is no God.

What then is the "objective meaning" to our existence? The ToE indicates this "objective meaning" is to procreate. Is there some meaning beyond that?

I would argue there is no logical reason to believe that life is meaningless when there is no proof that a condition that would give it meaning doesn't exist.

So, we have such as "There's an objective meaning, so God", or "God, so objective meaning". Or we have the ToE's "procreate". How can we tell which is the more logical to think accurate?

Thus, I would argue belief in a God is logical. (I would elaborate, but again, everything got deleted before and I really need to go to bed).

Please present this argument for examination.

There is quantum theory which suggests...

"Suggests" does not mean actually does. Given the lack of verification for these "infinite realities", why should we accept such beyond our own?

The scientific suggestion is that in some reality or another, no matter how unlikely you think something is, it DID happen. Does it mean you should teach it in science or history class? No, definitely not. But it does mean people shouldn't go around telling people with faith their ideas are IMPOSSIBLE, because that's simply not true. Unlikely in this given reality, perhaps.

Fair 'nuff, if we keep in mind many religious claims can't be shown to occur in this, our one and only observable reality.

I notice the most "powerful" arguments for religious claims rely on weak premises, logic derived thereof, the existence of realities we can't confirm, and the supernatural. Given the total lack of ability to confirm such, I see no reason to think the theist presents anything beyond wishful thinking.

My own view as to the nature of God (very, very summarized) is that God IS Good. As in, (taking the view that evil is good's absence and God created everything) all good is a part of God (who in this view is a singular being of infinite dimensions that due to the infinite dimension nature can be viewed from our perspective as having multiple aspects).

Do you not see that your definition is not verifiable, and really just defines God in a manner that none can question His acts?

From a God side my beliefs are basically a reconciliation of Christianity and deism, with pantheism and some Hindu/ancient Greek ideas on God thrown in.

I notice none of these religious notions can be confirmed.

From an existence perspective it's basically the theological equivalent of quantum theory (take the infinite realities proposed by quantum theory, then raise that to an infinite power thanks to an all powerful deity existing outside those realities, and you get existence).

My understanding is that quantum theory has some underlying math in its support.

I can't help thinking this whole "infinite power" deal is an ad hoc effort to include possibility where the given claim can't really be confirmed.

[ChaosBorders]

From Post 62:

If your thoughts and opinions are being preordained, you can't think for yourself, because even the belief you are thinking for yourself has been preordained. God or no god, science increasingly supports the notion that free will is a convenient illusion and we don't really "think for ourselves" anyways, so the desire to think independently makes for a poor reason to reject accepting the idea of God having a plan for them.

So I accept God has a plan. Why should I think this plan is good, best, etc.? It seems to me as if you are defining god by what he does, rather than what He is. The problem here is having an entity we can't show exists, and then trying to derive properties for it. How can we confirm your scenario?

What if God is the ultimate cosmic joker, and his plan is for us to follow our own understanding, as oppossed to what religious texts may tell us? How can we know?

Given any interpretation of a religious text is in effect someone following their "own" (I use the word loosely) understanding anyways, I'd say that's exactly God's plan.

And strictly speaking, you can't confirm the scenario. If the scenario is accurate, either you're fortunate enough to be graced with faith and/or understanding or you aren't.

If you go with the premise that God IS Good, then humans being responsible to one another (generally a good thing) logically follows as being in accordance with what God would like. >with following caveat<

...What binds me to this premise?

Nothing binds you to believing it. BUT, there are two arguments in favor of doing so. One would be the approach that if you've already gone with the premise that God exists and created the universe and everything in it, then God gets to define what good is and logically defines everything God does as being good...

Just because He created it? I certainly understand the idea of "I made it, I do what I want", but I'm unwilling to let go of my humanity because I've been created. My parents created me, if it's their "plan" that I drown in a flood, am I bound to accept that?

If your parents are all powerful and all knowing, even your acceptance or lack thereof is logically determined. So if you accept it, you were bound to. If you don't, then you were bound not to. Either way it doesn't change the outcome, so arguably you are lucky if you're bound to accept it given acceptance generally results in greater peace of mind and contentment.

Another approach is defining evil as the absence of good, which if using the premise God exists and created the universe and everything in it automatically makes God good because evil can only definitionally exist where there is a deficiency or lacking in creation. >clarificatin' to follow<

That seems more like an ad hoc definition. If we define God's acts as all good, we're bound to that definition. I don't presuppose this position, but consider God's acts on a case by case basis.

And how do you personally determine something to be "Good"? What definition are you using for something being good which you are considering God's acts as?

The first manner you can only argue against using subjective morality. But if you make morality a subjective matter, I can argue that genocide and murder can be good things under certain circumstances. It's a no-win situation.

I would argue that all values are subjective. Ask those committing genocide if they're cool with it.

If all values are subjective then good and evil become rather meaningless terms and I don't see the point in arguing them anyways. From God's perspective obviously God would be good. Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant because you can't do anything about it. You can either have trust things are objectively good or whine about it when things don't go your way because you don't think that's "good". If there is not objective value of good, then there is no point arguing anything is good.

However, regarding deciding what is good for us ourselves, a host of psychological studies and human history in general indicate we are are really bad at doing that in terms of doing what is healthy for ourselves and each other.

I would say the fact that "here we are" indicates we've been able to overcome such conflict.

I would say the billions living in poverty and millions dieing of starvation, despite the fact we have more than enough resources to solve the problem (true fact), would beg to differ.

I think maybe I misunderstand. You seem to indicate humans not quite living up to a given standard means something more than just that. All I see is humans being human. The struggle for life and social status doesn't really indicate which method is best. Is it best I give up any portion of my food to feed another, when such loss of food may risk my own future ability to eat? May, not "will", just may.

Given you've established your view of good is subjective, there is no longer any point arguing things like this. I was going off the fact you had earlier stated we shouldn't give up our responsibility to one another based on what God says. I don't think using a subjective definition of good you can even HAVE any objective responsibility to others, so there's no reason to do anything besides whatever you feel like doing. The only problem with that is if everyone acts in such a self-serving manner human civilization ceases to function. And enough people do that it only functions mildly well as it is.

I'm not arguing that God exists because of the grandness of the universe. I would make the argument that existence is objectively meaningless if there is no God.

What then is the "objective meaning" to our existence? The ToE indicates this "objective meaning" is to procreate. Is there some meaning beyond that?

The existence of an all knowing God gives objective meaning through there being a record of our existence. If nothing else, it gives the subjective meaning people assign their lives objective permanence, creating an objective-subjective meaning for them. If you go further regarding a belief in God there are other possibilities concerning objective-objective meanings.

Without an all knowing being there will be eventually be no objective record of your existence, thus anything you've done is objectively meaningless. I see no logical reason to believe that to be the case without any conclusive proof one way or the other. Thus I accept the premise that makes it no longer the case and work from there.

I would argue there is no logical reason to believe that life is meaningless when there is no proof that a condition that would give it meaning doesn't exist.

So, we have such as "There's an objective meaning, so God", or "God, so objective meaning". Or we have the ToE's "procreate". How can we tell which is the more logical to think accurate?

Procreating is not objectively meaningful. Eventually the species will be extinct, as most likely will all life on Earth (along with the Earth itself and the Sun along a long enough time line). There will be no evidence of any kind we ever existed, so from a future perspective we might as well not have.

There is no conclusive proof that is true. So why should it be logical to take the point of view existence is meaningless when an alternative belief is available? Certainly psychology indicates humans have a need to view their lives as meaningful and will create subjective meanings for themselves and what they do that most will argue (illogically) are objectively meaningful.

Given that the logical conclusion of there not being a God is life is objectively meaningless, there is no proof God does not exist, there is no logical reason to believe one's life is meaningless and many proven benefits of believing one's life has meaning, the logical conclusion would be to believe there is a God.

Perhaps wishful thinking. But I have no logical reason to believe the alternative.

My own view as to the nature of God (very, very summarized) is that God IS Good. As in, (taking the view that evil is good's absence and God created everything) all good is a part of God (who in this view is a singular being of infinite dimensions that due to the infinite dimension nature can be viewed from our perspective as having multiple aspects).

Do you not see that your definition is not verifiable, and really just defines God in a manner that none can question His acts?

More accurately it defines God in a manner that any question regarding God's acts results in an ultimately positive answer. I was never cool with the "none can question His acts" thing. Which resulted in years of doing just that, much to the detriment of my mental health. Lots of research on theology eventually led, piece by piece, to a framework that was consistent and answered the questions in a satisfactory manner that restored a positive outlook on life despite so much physical evidence life sucks and then you die. But you're right that it is unverifiable and depends on its premises.

From an existence perspective it's basically the theological equivalent of quantum theory (take the infinite realities proposed by quantum theory, then raise that to an infinite power thanks to an all powerful deity existing outside those realities, and you get existence).

My understanding is that quantum theory has some underlying math in its support.

I can't help thinking this whole "infinite power" deal is an ad hoc effort to include possibility where the given claim can't really be confirmed.

I'm not sure which claim I'm supposed to be confirming with that. Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory has always been my scientific perspective, long before I reconciled it with religious notions. It fit together quite nicely because it created a non arbitrary solution for the theological problems of evil and Hell.

[cnorman18]

Conscience, will, mind, logic, purity, righteousness, motives, presuppositions, sanity, intellectual ability, moral faculty, and senses are all being subsumed under the heading "Reason." Reason--by which I mean logic and intellectual ability, and to a certain extent, the senses--is useful and kinda works, but it's corrupted by sin.

This type of argument has been made often by Christian apologists. You cannot trust your own thinking. You a cannot trust your own intellectual ability. You cannot trust human morality. It has all been corrupted by sin. You must abandon your self-centered life and embrace God's will only.

But here is the hitch. In order to come to the conclusion that there even is a God, I must resort to using my own tainted reasoning processes. Then, once convinced in my corrupted mind that God exists, I have to again use my own blighted cogitation to determine which alleged revelations are really from God and which ones are not (Torah, New Testament, Qur'an, Mormon, Urantia ...). Having reached some conclusions on that issue, I must again rely on my own depraved dialectics to choose among competing interpretations.

Pray to God for a sign, they sometimes answer, pray to God for wisdom. Yet, even there, I must interpret the signs and test the spirits, according to my own perverted human wisdom.

Question for debate, If not our own intellectual abilities, what could we possibly turn to, to assess TRUTH?

Coming in a bit late, and I don't intend to jump into the various subdebates that spring up like mushrooms in a thread like this ("free will," &c.), but just for the record, this dilemma doesn't present itself to Jews. We don't believe in "original sin" or that human reason is corrupt and untrustworthy.

Of course, we believe in science and evolution and all sorts of things that fundamentalist Christians don't, as well. Different perspective; it's OKAY to think and question and trust your own best judgment. What else have we got? Dogmatism doesn't get you anywhere but round and round in circles, like this one.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 64:

Given any interpretation of a religious text is in effect someone following their "own" (I use the word loosely) understanding anyways, I'd say that's exactly God's plan.

How can we confirm this is God's plan?

And strictly speaking, you can't confirm the scenario. If the scenario is accurate, either you're fortunate enough to be graced with faith and/or understanding or you aren't.

That sounds an awful lot like "either God claims can be shown accurate, or they can't".

As you propose various scenarios involving God, I ask why we should accept your take.

If your parents are all powerful and all knowing, even your acceptance or lack thereof is logically determined. So if you accept it, you were bound to. If you don't, then you were bound not to. Either way it doesn't change the outcome, so arguably you are lucky if you're bound to accept it given acceptance generally results in greater peace of mind and contentment.

Couple issues...

1- Can we show God is all powerful and all knowing?
2- If God is thus, why am I bound to accept how He acts towards me or others?

And how do you personally determine something to be "Good"? What definition are you using for something being good which you are considering God's acts as?

I consider "good" to be a relatively subjective evaluation of a given proposition. As you claim a God is "all good", I ask how we can know you speak truth.

If all values are subjective then good and evil become rather meaningless terms and I don't see the point in arguing them anyways.

Then you'd probably need to show an objective value exists.

From God's perspective obviously God would be good.

Please offer some means to show you are aware of God's perspective. Doesn't God's changing His mind between the OT and the NT indicates he may not have been too happy with His own past actions?

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant because you can't do anything about it.

I can holler, shake my fist, and cuss a God that does something I object to.

You can either have trust things are objectively good or whine about it when things don't go your way because you don't think that's "good".

I object to the wording here...

1- One man's "whining" is another man's getting mad and trying to do something.

2- Those who propose objective values exist are obliged to show they speak truth.

If there is not objective value of good, then there is no point arguing anything is good.

Yes there is, specifically so we can attempt to ensure folks follow a path towards good.

When two opposing takes on what constitutes good collide, it is the arguing of the two positions that helps us make a determination regarding which path we choose to follow.

By declaring a given notion objective all we are doing is preventing any rational discussion.

... I don't think using a subjective definition of good you can even HAVE any objective responsibility to others, so there's no reason to do anything besides whatever you feel like doing. The only problem with that is if everyone acts in such a self-serving manner human civilization ceases to function. And enough people do that it only functions mildly well as it is.

Not at all. We have an obligation to not harm others, as such could lead to the downfall of us all.

What then is the "objective meaning" to our existence? The ToE indicates this "objective meaning" is to procreate. Is there some meaning beyond that?

The existence of an all knowing God gives objective meaning through there being a record of our existence...

What then of all the fossils? The architecture? The footprints?

I don't see any requirement for a God in order to justify our existence. Here we are. Where's God?

If nothing else, it gives the subjective meaning people assign their lives objective permanence, creating an objective-subjective meaning for them. If you go further regarding a belief in God there are other possibilities concerning objective-objective meanings.

I don't doubt belief in God may offer comfort to some. I just doubt that is the only justification available, or even likely when it comes to showing the god affecting this planet.

Without an all knowing being there will be eventually be no objective record of your existence, thus anything you've done is objectively meaningless. I see no logical reason to believe that to be the case without any conclusive proof one way or the other. Thus I accept the premise that makes it no longer the case and work from there.

What evidence is there to show there's an all knowing being?

What would be the objective in recording the fact humans exist?

So, we have such as "There's an objective meaning, so God", or "God, so objective meaning". Or we have the ToE's "procreate". How can we tell which is the more logical to think accurate?

Procreating is not objectively meaningful. Eventually the species will be extinct, as most likely will all life on Earth (along with the Earth itself and the Sun along a long enough time line). There will be no evidence of any kind we ever existed, so from a future perspective we might as well not have.

Which goes back to there being no objective, perhaps beyond just living.

How does showing the ToE inaccurate show that the "God-objective" angle accurate, or more logical?

There is no conclusive proof that is true. So why should it be logical to take the point of view existence is meaningless when an alternative belief is available?...

That's just it, I don't think existence is meaningless. I find great value in living my life, and find no logical reason to think if a God doesn't exist that my own existence would then be meaningless.

Certainly psychology indicates humans have a need to view their lives as meaningful and will create subjective meanings for themselves and what they do that most will argue (illogically) are objectively meaningful.

So then, what "logical" argument shows God's existence means our lives are "objectively meaningful"?

Given that the logical conclusion of there not being a God is life is objectively meaningless, there is no proof God does not exist, there is no logical reason to believe one's life is meaningless and many proven benefits of believing one's life has meaning, the logical conclusion would be to believe there is a God.

That you find no meaning in your life unless a god exists is noted.

Why is your position more logical than "here we are, I see no god, but still enjoy life"?

Perhaps wishful thinking. But I have no logical reason to believe the alternative.

Actually, I'm thinking you are not relying on logic, but on emotion.

How is it more logical to believe something exists when there's no evidence?

Do you not see that your definition is not verifiable, and really just defines God in a manner that none can question His acts?

More accurately it defines God in a manner that any question regarding God's acts results in an ultimately positive answer. I was never cool with the "none can question His acts" thing. Which resulted in years of doing just that, much to the detriment of my mental health. Lots of research on theology eventually led, piece by piece, to a framework that was consistent and answered the questions in a satisfactory manner that restored a positive outlook on life despite so much physical evidence life sucks and then you die. But you're right that it is unverifiable and depends on its premises.

And it is those premises I question. I just don't see any logic in declaring a God's acts to be good simply because He's God and all.

I'm not sure which claim I'm supposed to be confirming with that. Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory has always been my scientific perspective, long before I reconciled it with religious notions. It fit together quite nicely because it created a non arbitrary solution for the theological problems of evil and Hell.

Please elaborate.

[trillian]

...I simply do NOT accept your assertion that "absolute truth exists"...

except this sentence right? I rest my case.

[Zzyzx]

.

...I simply do NOT accept your assertion that "absolute truth exists"...

except this sentence right? I rest my case.

I trust that readers realize that "rest my case" is quite premature and unwarranted.

I trust also that readers observe that you ducked questions -- which if answered truthfully would damage your “argument� (numbered below for your consideration).

(1) Are you attempting to convince readers that what you say is true (or are you just talking)? To be convincing to the non-gullible, one is expected to present evidence. (2) Can you DEMONSTRATE that some favorite "god" determines truth? Mere claims repeated are not evidence -- only conjecture and opinion. Referring to ancient religious promotional literature is not convincing except to those who want to believe "on faith alone" (the "choir" to whom many preach).

(3) As a "former atheist" do you presume to KNOW the thinking of other or all atheists? (4) Are "former Christians" entitled to speak for other or all Christians? Are their individual experiences or opinions representative of the group?

Care to try to answer for all to see?

[trillian]

...I simply do NOT accept your assertion that "absolute truth exists"...

except this sentence right? I rest my case.

I trust that readers realize that "rest my case" is quite premature and unwarranted.

I have answered all your questions. If we can't get past the issue of absolute truth, whatever I say, whatever you say remains irrelevant. As statements of absolute truth are fundamentally recursive - we will never get anywhere.

As a personal appeal, as I have said previously, is to give Christ a chance despite whatever conceptions you may have about Him. Despite that it may seem absurd. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. But I am a human being and I know other human beings go through this thing called life. I live this same life and so do you. I almost died, swallowed my pride and realised the truth that is in Christ. I pray that you one day may also know Him.

Amen.

[Goat]

...I simply do NOT accept your assertion that "absolute truth exists"...

except this sentence right? I rest my case.

I trust that readers realize that "rest my case" is quite premature and unwarranted.

I have answered all your questions. If we can't get past the issue of absolute truth, whatever I say, whatever you say remains irrelevant. As statements of absolute truth are fundamentally recursive - we will never get anywhere.

As a personal appeal, as I have said previously, is to give Christ a chance despite whatever conceptions you may have about Him. Despite that it may seem absurd. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. But I am a human being and I know other human beings go through this thing called life. I live this same life and so do you. I almost died, swallowed my pride and realised the truth that is in Christ. I pray that you one day may also know Him.

Amen.

This sounds like a total avoidance. Perhaps you can define in a logical way what you mean by 'absolute truth'? The way you are addressing this issue sounds like 'I believe in absolute truth, I know what it is, I can't describe it, I can't show it exists, but since you don't accept me at my word, I'll pray for your soul"

What is 'absolute truth'. What makes you think you know what it is? How can you test for this? If there is absolute truth, why can't you demonstrate it?