A perfect god can not exist?

@Extrain,

Extrain;155561 wrote:

So? The case is a stretch. I could use the same reasoning. The problem is that there are many measuring sticks. There is no standard measuring stick to determine the correct measurement, since all measurements are conventional anyway. Meters, centimeters, inches, my own made up measuring stick? Which one is the right measuring stick?

How do we know the one in Paris is the correct measuring stick?

Please. It is stipulated as the standard. The only like stipulation I know of is the command theory of morality. Is that what you are maintaining?

There is no standard measuring stick to determine the correct measurement, since all measurements are conventional anyway.

I am sure you can see that the above is a non sequitur. It is as if you were to say that there are no rules of chess, since chess is a game, and games are conventional.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;155555 wrote:

"Christianity is a wonderful religion, someone should practice it" Gandhi
"I like your christ, but I do not like your christians they are so unlike Christ"Gandhi

Wow. You just made a hasty generalizations about an entire class of followers in one religion. Does Gandhi mean all Hindus are more like Vishnu than all Christians are like Christ, then? Either Vishnu wasn't a very good God, or all Vishnaivites are perfect followers of Hindism's code of ethics. This doesn't sound like a sound judgment at all on Gandhi's behalf. ouch.

prothero;155555 wrote:

I pretty much embrace the form of christianity which is about the primacy of love over law (creed, doctrine, dogma, etc.)

I embrace the Christianity that promotes love coupled with wisdom and truth.

prothero;155555 wrote:

Where inner spirituality (god is love) is more important than external piety
and
where the kingdom of heaven lies before you and within you but you do not see.

I don't know of any Christian dogma which teaches that expressions of external piety are more important than the message "God is Love." Which Christianity is that?

prothero;155555 wrote:

I pretty much reject the form of Chrisitianity which condemns other faiths and other beliefs and claims exclusive access to god, salvation and truth.

I don't know of a Christianity that doctrinally "condemns" other faiths. Some individual Christians do this, yes, and it's a pity. But that's not what Christ taught. So they are wrong. But there is nothing wrong with believing your own religious tradition has a firmer grip on the truth than other religions. Most religions hold some kind of attitude like this. When the Dalai Lama was asked why he was Buddhist since he believed "all religions were true," his reply was, "Buddhism is most efficient." That's what I believe about my own tradition. And so do people in every other tradition.

prothero;155555 wrote:

I do not engage in personal polemics and this conversation has become too personal, so I am out unless science, facts and reason mixed with a little respectful politeness can reign.

Maybe if you didn't start off condemning all christians with pejorative remarks and hasty generalizations while making completely misinformed judgments about the Christian's own personal experiences of his "small god" this conversation would not have the tendency to move in a polemical or personal direction? I certainly haven't condemned, or spoken badly of any one religion at all. Nor have I presumed to know and evaluate what another's personal experience of the Divine was like within another mystic tradition. Maybe you might want to check out that Plank in your own eye? Just a suggestion.

[QUOTE] Boris Grushenko (Woody) asks Sonya (Diane Keaton), "What if there is no God? What if we're just a bunch of absurd people who are running around with no rhyme or reason?"[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Sonya replies: "But if there is no God, then life has no meaning. Why go on living? Why not just commit suicide?"
Boris, somewhat flustered, says: "Well, let's not get hysterical. I could be wrong. I'd hate to blow my brains out and then read in the papers they found something." Later in the movie, Boris, deceased yet delivering an epilogue, observes: "If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think he is evil. I think that the worst thing you can say about him is that he is an underachiever."

*Woody Allen Existentialist Polemics.*

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 02:16 AM ----------

kennethamy;155565 wrote:

Please. It is stipulated as the standard. The only like stipulation I know of is the command theory of morality. Is that what you are maintaining?

There is no standard measuring stick to determine the correct measurement, since all measurements are conventional anyway.

I am sure you can see that the above is a non sequitur. It is as if you were to say that there are no rules of chess, since chess is a game, and games are conventional.

I am just rhetorically suggesting you are going too far in thinking people's consciences are not a source of discerning moral truth.

Yes, peoples conscience's are not always the best authority. But what other source do we have? I don't need to remind you that mankind is a mess. And first thing that is going to deteriorate is his moral conscience when he starts living egocentrically. No wonder moral relativism is so nouveau.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;155563 wrote:

I think the idea that moral judgment is subjective is very close to saying that it is a matter of opinion. .

In fact that is exactly what David Hume spent a lot of time arguing against. He argued that moral judgments are subjective, but that they are not just matters of opinion. And that we should not confuse the two.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155573 wrote:

In fact that is exactly what David Hume spent a lot of time arguing against. He argued that moral judgments are subjective, but that they are not just matters of opinion. And that we should not confuse the two.

But Hume WAS a non-cognitivist.

Where do you stand, if I may ask?

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;155568 wrote:

Yes, peoples conscience's are not always the best authority. But what other source do we have? .

That reminds me of the old joke about the man who was looking for his keys near the street light. Not that he lost his keys while there, but because the light was better.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155576 wrote:

That reminds me of the old joke about the man who was looking for his keys near the street light. Not that he lost his keys while there, but because the light was better.

FYI, I do happen to subsrcibe to the Aristotelian virtue ethics in guiding my own actions (coupled with a DCT belief in the source of morality). I just don't like mentioning these things on forum predominated by amateur atheists and moral relativists because the discussion never gets off the ground. But I don't think the conscience is not a guide at all for moral discernment in determining right from wrong.

Instead of crtiquing, do you have a view of your own, Ken?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;155563 wrote:

I think the idea that moral judgment is subjective is very close to saying that it is a matter of opinion.

All one's experience of the world is subjective, and very little of it is a matter of opinion.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Very interesting observation. I will have to mull that one over.

(Incidentally, I can't help but be reminded of a book that Kennethamy suggested elsewhere, namely After Virtue, by Alisdair McIntyre.)

0 Replies

@Amperage,

Amperage;155457 wrote:

because some things are necessarily wrong and some things are truly right. Thereby making statements like "rape is wrong" be true....and statements like "child abuse is right" be false if right and wrong are objective notions then they can be discussed in the same manner and I would hold for the same reason.....something cannot be both right and wrong. In binary something cannot be 0 and 1...True and false values can be aligned to these objective notions

But I said the principle of bivalence for right/wrong making properties does not hold for all actions, but only for right/wrong contextually morally relevant actions.

All propositions are true or false, but not both--is true.

All morally relevant actions are right or wrong, but not both--is true.

But, all actions are right or wrong, but not both--is false, since,

For some actions, it is not the case those actions are right or wrong, but not both--is true.

E.g., in a nonmoral context,

Tying your shoes is morally wrong--is false.

Therefore, tying your shoes is morally right--is false

Both are false, and the purported argument is invalid because the principle of bivalence with respect to right and wrong does not hold for actions such as tying your shoes in nonmoral contexts.

0 Replies

@Extrain,

Extrain;155575 wrote:

But Hume WAS a non-cognitivist.

Where do you stand, if I may ask?

I think Hume was very near the mark. But like him, I think that the distance between subjectivism in ethics, and it's all just a matter of opinion, is very great. It is absurd to think that whether torturing babies is wrong is "a matter of opinion". We simply don't use that phrase in that way.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155598 wrote:

I think Hume was very near the mark. But like him, I think that the distance between subjectivism in ethics, and it's all just a matter of opinion, is very great. It is absurd to think that whether torturing babies is wrong is "a matter of opinion". We simply don't use that phrase in that way.

opinion - a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155601 wrote:

opinion - a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

And, so? In that case, I guess it is an opinion that water is H20. That's all right. But that does not mean that whether water is H20 is a matter of opinion. Or do you think so? To say that something is an opinion is one thing. But to say that it is a matter of opinion is a very different thing.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155602 wrote:

And, so? In that case, I guess it is an opinion that water is H20.

How is the belief that water is H20 not based on proof? Did you never study chemistry in school?

proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155604 wrote:

How is the belief that water is H20 not based on proof? Did you never study chemistry in school?

proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

O.K. I thought you were talking about mathematical demonstration. But I don't mind if you consider that proof. So do I. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between a matter of opinion like, chocolate tastes better than vanilla, and an opinion like it is better to be healthy then ill. Don't you agree?

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;151718 wrote:

Hi All

That the idea of a perfectly good god contradicts itself means that it is impossible for a good god to exist. An amoral or immoral one could exist though. The evidence is suffering, pain and the unsuitability of the universe for peaceful life is rather a big hint, however, that God is not amoral, but is actually immoral and sadistically evil. Of course it is completely more obviously the case that there isn't a god of any kind, but if there was one, it wouldn't make sense to call it "moral", it'd have to amoral at best.

I think that all gods are hogwash. that said i make it a point to look at everything from every angle i can conceive. It seems to me a good god could exist. Firstly he like anything else that exists would have to have mass shape and location. exist is one of the most misused words around. secondly he would just have to know what good is and do it. for example maybe suffering is good because it makes not suffering so much better. Maybe a world full of constantly content humans would led to the most boring existence ever and is that not the reason alleged god made people in the first place?

If i was you i would think about how a all knowing all powerful free willed god is the same as saying there is a circular square. I am not about to explain it as it would take a page or two. Ill get you started though with the question i thought of and pondered for along time.

Can god change his mind?

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:52 AM ----------

Night Ripper;155604 wrote:

How is the belief that water is H20 not based on proof? Did you never study chemistry in school?

proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

The reductionist in me wants to say that the proof is based on observation which is based on perception. Also water is not H20. water is water. H2o is a symbol belonging to a system created by a human. If Antoine Lavoisier would have named hydrogen SLidrogen you would be saying S2o or any other possible name it was given. Water is water: H2O is a description of water.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155609 wrote:

But that has nothing to do with the distinction between a matter of opinion . . . and an opinion . . .

Right, an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. A matter of opinion is something about which the only belief you can form is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. The reason for this being that there is no proof or certainty to be had.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155620 wrote:

Right, an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. A matter of opinion is something about which the only belief you can form is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. The reason for this being that there is no proof or certainty to be had.

Hmm. I thought that a matter of opinion is a belief that is neither true nor false. And an opinion was a belief that is either true or false, but one for which we do not have enough evidence to determine which it is.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155621 wrote:

Hmm. I thought that a matter of opinion is a belief that is neither true nor false. And an opinion was a belief that is either true or false, but one for which we do not have enough evidence to determine which it is.

Clearly a person can hold an opinion about a matter of opinion.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155621 wrote:

I thought that a matter of opinion is a belief that is neither true nor false.

Matters of opinion are not beliefs, they are matters. Matters of opinion bring about opinions because that's all they can bring about.

0 Replies

@Amperage,

Amperage;155492 wrote:

Apparently Krumple is a firm believer in "might makes right"

It's not about being a believer in that concept. It's that the world works in that way, it's just most people don't want to acknowledge it, for what ever reason. I am not saying it is the best way, I am simply saying that is how it is.

2 Replies

A perfect god can not exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know