what proof is there that god exists? (1 Viewer)

[speak]

matrix

 

[mirakon]

However this is, again, a highly problematic argument. The problem with engaging with 18th century thinkers on some of these issues is that our understanding of human evolution, early social interaction, history and other issues of reality has progresses a thousand times since then, and this invalidates many of his arguments.

Let's consider murder, for example, and take it as truth, for the purposes of the discussion, that basically every society on earth views murder, to differing degrees, as unacceptable (at least the indiscriminate killing of others within your society as a base line).

Now humanity is a biologically weak species, and our strength lies in our social bonds and relationships with other humans. It is this relationship and support network with those within our society that protects us from the dangers of rival species, and without this we are highly vulnerable to danger.

Since the development of early hominid societies, then, the continuation of our species has been invested in the continuation of such societal bonds, without which our safety net would break down and our species as a whole would be threatened. Thus, as early hominids developed, the idea that one should not commit an act that inherently breaks down the very bonds that form our sole barrier against the dangers of the natural world became so essential as to become ingrained in us.

This idea is so natural and so essential, when considered in a utilitarian sense, that when writing, speech and complex society became the norm, it is entirely natural that discourses of morality were developed that simply reflect the biological necessities which had been ingrained in our very existence for the past 190,000 years at the very least.

See where I'm coming from? There is no natural need to be told via discourses of religion that this behaviour is not moral, as the idea that it isn't moral is so deeply related to the fact that it is something that breaks down the fragment of society that keeps us safe, both as groups and individuals. In fact, these discourses of religion only reflect earlier discourses of morality that are drawn by early humans from their pensive interaction with the biological realities that they are encompassed by.

btw, I would like to refute your argument, however first can you please provide a definition of morality according to your interpretation? Then the argument could be much more progressive.

 

[Scorch]

btw, I would like to refute your argument, however first can you please provide a definition of morality according to your interpretation? Then the argument could be much more progressive.

I don't need to. I'm looking at it from a utilitarian point of view, ideas of morality are reflections of humanity's engagement with the realities of their existence.

 

[Omar-Comin]

btw, I would like to refute your argument, however first can you please provide a definition of morality according to your interpretation? Then the argument could be much more progressive.

little boy you've already admitted you where home-schooled by a cult. So stop with the niceties and tell us the date of this so called 'rapture' you keep pushing.

Step Up or Step Off.

 

[gesh17]

First off to all intents and purposes, faith is an irrational belief born from a longing for satiety and spiritual equilibrium. Hence, a belief in God is essentially irrational if one were to approach it from a purely intellectual perspective. Personally however, I reckon we must all acknowledge that each individual lives bound within his/her own awareness and interpretation of reality. Thus a belief in God boils down to a matter of either personal need or convenience. Some people just cannot conceive of the fact that their lives are arbitrary and temporal and so they create meaning out of faith so as to justify and validate their existence even if they do not wholeheartedly believe in the notion of a divine celestial presence.
(E.g. Right-wing fanatical evangelists who devote their entire lives to attending church, following the laws in the bible, etc. Another example could also be those individuals who attend church as a solely institutionalized concept advocated from early childhood.)

On the other hand, many individuals have faith based upon convenience. This is demonstrated through a kind of apathy to spiritual matters and is perhaps suggestive of the individual's desire to neither accept the responsibility of goodness or the guilt of wrongdoing but to lie ambiguously in the middle and render a sort of token worship.
(E.g. Individuals who attend church monotonously once a week, say prayers before eating simply for the sake of it, etc.)

But in the end, however, God does not necessarily have to be an actual being or presence but is more so an initiative in our lives; it means what you want it to mean for you individually.

Hope that helps.

 

[mirakon]

little boy you've already admitted you where home-schooled by a cult. So stop with the niceties and tell us the date of this so called 'rapture' you keep pushing.

Step Up or Step Off.

um what.

Stop screwing up intelligent threads with your babble ad infinitum.

 

[mirakon]

I don't need to. I'm looking at it from a utilitarian point of view, ideas of morality are reflections of humanity's engagement with the realities of their existence.

However utilitarian morality is one that to this day is quite debatable. If something is for the 'greater good' does it actually make it any more moral? Utilitarianism fails to address the individualistic aspects of humanity flawed in the sense tha it looks at the collective as one entity rather than at it's individual components.