Just one sec...
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What a world without God means

Announcements Posted on
Take our short survey, £100 of Amazon vouchers to be won! 23-09-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    You live for yourself but hope you make a better world in doing so.

    Better than killing the infidels because a book told you

    Hebrews 12:14: 'Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.'

    Proverbs 12:20: 'Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil, but those who promote peace have joy.'

    So much for killing infidels
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I described the argument used by one of the most pre-eminent theologians alive, it's not 'name dropping', it's just having some intellectual humility and accepting that he has thought about these things far longer and more thoroughly than I have, so I would be stupid not to use his arguments.
    That would be the case if you were citing it properly. Instead, you simply said in response to a counterargument, 'here's what WLC has argued...', followed by a cop-out that clearly doesn't resolve the dilemma it attempts to counter (see Emperor Trajan's post). It could be that you were deliberately making bad/incomplete arguments, but I'm opting for the more charitable view that you were hoping that a poor argument that dodges the issue could be propelled by attaching a well-known theologian's name to it.

    My points about objective morality being required for a successful 'problem of evil' argument are perfectly sound. The only reason I brought it up was because some poster was bringing up the problem of evil - what do you want me to do, ignore them?
    You were replying to me in that post, and I did not bring up the problem of evil or the question of God's existence. You're welcome to respond to any other points brought up by others, but when you're replying to me I think it's reasonable to expect that you address what I've said, not what someone else has said.

    And as I've said, it doesn't matter how sound or otherwise your points about a subject that was not the one being discussed are concerned - they're not relevant. The question of the existence of God is distinct from the question of the effect that belief in God (justified or not) has on human behaviour (as any fan of WLC's ought to know). Your initial argument was about the latter, so stick to it, please.

    When I mentioned doing 'bad' in a godless world I was using it in the subjective sense - the government, for example, deems certain things subjectively wrong and would use things like cctv to counter it. No contradiction.
    Except you referred to 'bad' in more than just one hypothetical world - your point explicitly drew a comparison between two such worlds (under the assumption that those are the only two possible, hence the false dichotomy), a godless one and one in which a god is believed in, to argue that there is a case for belief in God even if there is only a small chance of this being true. The precise definition of 'bad' is not consistent across those two worlds (and again, there are more than two, so you'd still have that to contend with even if it was consistent), therefore any comparison is meaningless.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    "The evidence against God is much greater" - I'd love to see some.

    Given that the physicist Sir Roger Penrose calculated that for a life permitting universe the ‘’Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10123... a number so large it's impossible to write out in the usual decimal way because even if you could put a 0 on every particle in the universe there wouldn't be enough to go round’, I'd have thought the odds are substantially better than 99/1.
    How about the existence of viruses and diseases that kill humans in the most horrific ways?How about the existence of a parasite whos entire life cycle is spent living in a childs eye? How about the fact that you cant see,taste,touch,hear or otherwise detect god? Given that the universe has something like 70 septillion stars ( apparently thats a number) and life has only occured once as far as we know,those are pretty good odds.Thats before you think that maybe there are other universes.
    And anyway those odds presuppose the existence of a creator.If those odds were actually different then we wouldnt be here to wonder about them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I genuinely wouldn't care. It wouldn't matter whether I was happy or sad, excited or bored, fat or thin, tired or energetic. I won't remember it anyway. I won't remember being me. It would all be perfectly pointless. This is no delusion, merely a fact.
    You didn't address my first points did you? You cant just ignore the main argument In a debate/discussion.

    The only reason you genuinely wouldn't care is because you look to the future/to god for purpose. But that is naive.

    I say it's weak because truthfully you would care. Naturally you would care. Its literally in our DNA to strive for success(e.g reproduction), so are you telling me you wouldn't care if you were starving because to not care is to reject the notion of being human. To live you must care. If you say no you are lying and are utterly delusional.

    What is fact is the idea that you won't remember anything. That is the only thing you have stated which is fact. Everything else is simply opinion, arrogant or naive as it may seem.

    Also you seem to repeat the idea that it would be pointless, why would it all be pointless? Why do you need to remember something for it to be meaningful? Where did this conclusion come from? God? You keep on repeating the same thing without addressing the issues in your argument.

    There can be purpose without God. There is purpose without God. To be human is to have purpose, it's part of existence. To reject/not care about life simply because God doesn't exist is irrational and delusional.

    Let me be clear though, there is no problem in finding purpose with God. Personally I find it to be naive and the easy way out but each to their own. But the point I'm making is that even if you find purpose in God, as humans you have purpose in yourselves regardless.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    People having differing moral standards does nothing to suggest whether or not objective morality exists or not. People can learn morality in all sorts of different ways. The point I'm making is that for you to argue God doesn't exist because he acted in an immoral way, you are appealing to objective standards of morality. I'm asking you: where on earth can you get those from if not God?
    Uhhhh...

    I never argued, nor even said, that.

    Perhaps you can answer the last question. How did you learn to murder, rape, or assault? Through society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MamzZass)
    You didn't address my first points did you? You cant just ignore the main argument In a debate/discussion.

    The only reason you genuinely wouldn't care is because you look to the future/to god for purpose. But that is naive.

    I say it's weak because truthfully you would care. Naturally you would care. Its literally in our DNA to strive for success(e.g reproduction), so are you telling me you wouldn't care if you were starving because to not care is to reject the notion of being human. To live you must care. If you say no you are lying and are utterly delusional.

    What is fact is the idea that you won't remember anything. That is the only thing you have stated which is fact. Everything else is simply opinion, arrogant or naive as it may seem.

    Also you seem to repeat the idea that it would be pointless, why would it all be pointless? Why do you need to remember something for it to be meaningful? Where did this conclusion come from? God? You keep on repeating the same thing without addressing the issues in your argument.

    There can be purpose without God. There is purpose without God. To be human is to have purpose, it's part of existence. To reject/not care about life simply because God doesn't exist is irrational and delusional.

    Let me be clear though, there is no problem in finding purpose with God. Personally I find it to be naive and the easy way out but each to their own. But the point I'm making is that even if you find purpose in God, as humans you have purpose in yourselves regardless.
    Given this thread is 'all against one', I have a heck of a lot of people to reply to, so I chose your last paragraph to discuss.

    Trouble is, you don't really have an argument. You're just repeating that 'human life has purpose', almost innately. But could you tell me what that purpose is? To exist? Well existence can't be our purpose because at some point very soon we cease to exist and it was all for nothing. To enjoy living? Well, one of the main tenets of my original post was that this is not a purpose, since when we die it is literally the same regardless of whether we enjoyed life or not. We achieve nothing, so we are 'for' nothing, aka purposeless.

    To reject life because God doesn't exist is extremely rational. Waking up in the morning, homework, a dead-end job, why bother? You end up the same regardless of whether you put yourself through the struggles of life after all (or, indeed, its pleasures). The rational positon would be to realise this, and end your life.

    I'm surprised that you are honestly maintaining that if an action will never be remembered, and it effect on you or anything else will disappear without trace, it is still worthwhile putting yourself through life for. There is no rational reason for doing so, it's just your delusion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Uhhhh...

    I never argued, nor even said, that.

    Perhaps you can answer the last question. How did you learn to murder, rape, or assault? Through society.
    Sorry, must have been someone else.

    But in answer to your last question, of course I learned morality from society/evolution, but how we learn morality has no bearing on whether morality is objevtive or not. For example, just because historians have different views doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth of what happened in the past.

    The point I was making was that objective moral values cannot be created by society. Society could have created them differently (they usually do), so they cannot be objectively true, only subjectively. For the problem of evil to be successful one must appeal to objective moral values, hence what we as a society view as immoral is insufficient for the argument.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    How about the existence of viruses and diseases that kill humans in the most horrific ways?How about the existence of a parasite whos entire life cycle is spent living in a childs eye? How about the fact that you cant see,taste,touch,hear or otherwise detect god? Given that the universe has something like 70 septillion stars ( apparently thats a number) and life has only occured once as far as we know,those are pretty good odds.Thats before you think that maybe there are other universes.
    And anyway those odds presuppose the existence of a creator.If those odds were actually different then we wouldnt be here to wonder about them.
    If you're referring to the logical problem of evil, Plantinga basically destroyed it, so I suggest you look that up.

    I would also ask on what basis you think it is 'evil' or 'wrong' for God to have allowed these things. If morality is subjective you have no basis other than your own opinion, which undermines your argument. The only way round this is to appeal to objective morality. But how can objective morality exist but for God?

    You're also misunderstanding the idea of probability. The incredible improbability of a life permitting universe is not reduced by the univeree being very large - because the fine tuning applies to everything in the universe. Also, to say that it isn't surprising because we exist is akin to being shot at from point blank range by a hundred soldiers and then not being surprised that you survived, because you 'still exist to wonder about it'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    But the point is that humans aren't perceiving each other all of the time. Without God, it becomes acceptable to do bad things if no one is looking - who would ever find out?

    Don't be surprised if the state responds with CCTV and surveillance - replacing the role of God, but in humans' hands, not God's omnibenevolent ones.
    What states will replace God's position by adding intensive amount of CCTV and surveillance? I can understand you live in a little bubble and ignore the sheer fact that most significant countries in the world are in fact secular.

    Morality doesn't only come from God but rather comes from our own minds. Don't you see some moral atheists so your argument itself is rather flawed. Religion and morality isn't interconnected, they may cross paths but they aren't the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    What states will replace God's position by adding intensive amount of CCTV and surveillance? I can understand you live in a little bubble and ignore the sheer fact that most significant countries in the world are in fact secular.

    Morality doesn't only come from God but rather comes from our own minds. Don't you see some moral atheists so your argument itself is rather flawed. Religion and morality isn't interconnected, they may cross paths but they aren't the same.
    How about the UK or US? The two most prolific surveillance governments in history. It's not about God providing morality - it's about people feeling the need to act morally. God provides this impetus. When God is gone, you get surveillance like we currently have.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    If you're referring to the logical problem of evil, Plantinga basically destroyed it, so I suggest you look that up.

    I would also ask on what basis you think it is 'evil' or 'wrong' for God to have allowed these things. If morality is subjective you have no basis other than your own opinion, which undermines your argument. The only way round this is to appeal to objective morality. But how can objective morality exist but for God?

    You're also misunderstanding the idea of probability. The incredible improbability of a life permitting universe is not reduced by the univeree being very large - because the fine tuning applies to everything in the universe. Also, to say that it isn't surprising because we exist is akin to being shot at from point blank range by a hundred soldiers and then not being surprised that you survived, because you 'still exist to wonder about it'.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I dont think he exactly destroyed the argument.It doesnt account for evil that comes about from no fault of humans such as hurricanes and earthquakes.Morality does not come from god.That is why christians dont follow everything in the bible.They read the bible then cherrypick the parts they like using their conscience.Their conscience is where morality comes from,its inbuilt and doesnt come from god.I dont really see that the universe is actually finetuned for life.You are ignoring all the other planets where life is not possible say venus for example.You are just saying look we live on a planet hospitable to life look how finetuned the universe is when actually its largely hostile to life as we know it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    "The evidence against God is much greater" - I'd love to see some.

    Given that the physicist Sir Roger Penrose calculated that for a life permitting universe the ‘’Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power 10123... a number so large it's impossible to write out in the usual decimal way because even if you could put a 0 on every particle in the universe there wouldn't be enough to go round’, I'd have thought the odds are substantially better than 99/1.
    If God is real then whatever 'it' is, must also be a consummate hypocrite and full of human fallibility, weakness and vanity:

    Worship me or torture for eternity is on offer.
    Killing is a cardinal sin except when God does it to children in Aleppo.
    We have freedom of choice - because God has pre-determined our existence from birth and throughout all eternity.

    Whatever one does is irrelevant in determining one's fate because God has already determined that and nothing can change it.

    God is not worthy of being pissed on for the suffering he causes every second of every day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Looool. Most religious texts are contradictory in nature. They almost all say love everybody, but then there are also gems like this

    " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them""

    These books are whatever you want them to be, which is what makes them so dangerous
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    Looool. Most religious texts are contradictory in nature. They almost all say love everybody, but then there are also gems like this

    " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them""

    These books are whatever you want them to be, which is what makes them so dangerous
    Notice that's God being 'I'. I don't know about the second sentence but that's where translation and interpretation comes in - like analysis of any literary text

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Life is devoid of all objective purpose, yes, but people can choose what purpose they want to give their life and go with that. I personally find that much more liberating and wondrous that following a set purpose made by someone else.

    Following on from this, I don't see why dying and rotting away would have any major impact on this. At the end of the day, we are still living this life, so while we are living it we may as well do the things we enjoy and find pleasure in, even if we know that we won't remember it once we're gone. Why is eternal remembrance necessary for a temporary, subjective meaning of life?

    Moreover, giving your own meaning to life isn't a lie or a delusion because by definition it is a subjective meaning. It would only be a delusion if someone was making up their own meaning for life and at the same time insisting it was an objective one. It doesn't matter that my life will be forgotten or eventually have no impact on anything, why would that stop me from living it my way while I'm actually able to experience things?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)

    1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
    This is where you make a major flaw. Perhaps in your theology objective morals don't exist if God doesn't, but there are belief systems out there that do believe in God whilst also maintaining that objective morals are non-existent. I myself used to be a pantheist and I believed in a deity who itself rejected the notion of objective morality.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I know exactly what a world without God would look like.





    SS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    aha some real natural theology! Well William Craig answers the Euthyphro dilemma by arguing that it is a false dichotomy - God commands what he does because he is good.
    As someone else has mentioned, this doesn't resolve the dilemma, it just brings us back to square one. You say he (God) is good, but is he good because he has simply defined his original characteristics as good or are his characteristics objectively good regardless of what he thinks about them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "You might think that since you only get one shot at life you have to make the most of it, or else you’ll regret all those things you never did. But once you die, you’re not capable of regret."
    That's a reason to not have unjustifiable fear of death, it's not the justification of not making the best use of your life.

    However if you're originally coming from the angle that you need religion to give you purpose in life, you should at least come to the realisation that it doesn't make a lick of difference when you look at how non-religious people live their lives:
    They're not skulking in the corner crying or laying motionless, apathetic about everything. They're living their lives just as well as those with religion guiding their lives.

    "Please explain what objective reasons I have for trying to get enjoyment out of life if I end up the same regardless- without any recollection of joy?"
    I would've answered this question but the tone of your post had me check our your history of posts:
    You don't come across as a person that is genuinely concerned in getting answers or learning the views or perceptions of other. You come across as a salesman peddling his religion.

    Do your own reading you intellectually lazy muppet, Google is god!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Given this thread is 'all against one', I have a heck of a lot of people to reply to, so I chose your last paragraph to discuss.

    Trouble is, you don't really have an argument. You're just repeating that 'human life has purpose', almost innately. But could you tell me what that purpose is? To exist? Well existence can't be our purpose because at some point very soon we cease to exist and it was all for nothing. To enjoy living? Well, one of the main tenets of my original post was that this is not a purpose, since when we die it is literally the same regardless of whether we enjoyed life or not. We achieve nothing, so we are 'for' nothing, aka purposeless.

    To reject life because God doesn't exist is extremely rational. Waking up in the morning, homework, a dead-end job, why bother? You end up the same regardless of whether you put yourself through the struggles of life after all (or, indeed, its pleasures). The rational positon would be to realise this, and end your life.

    I'm surprised that you are honestly maintaining that if an action will never be remembered, and it effect on you or anything else will disappear without trace, it is still worthwhile putting yourself through life for. There is no rational reason for doing so, it's just your delusion.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How is enjoying life not a purpose? Your whole point relies on the idea that for something to be purposeful there needs to be a future\god but that idea itself is delusional. You are refusing to accept/consider that our purpose may be as simple as living. Why cant life be purposeful? Just because we cease to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean life is purposeless.

    What most theists struggle to accept is that they are not divine/special beings and are just animals. Hence if God were proven not to exist, atheists wouldn't care less and would carry on with their lives smug. Theists would be in outcry, only to accept that to live is purposeful. And do you know why? Because they rely on the future for purpose. You dont seem to consider that there is purpose in the present. Your only rebuttal is that we cease to exist so it isnt. That is delusional and naive.

    And my argument is quite clear and logical. Life has purpose with/without god. Gods existence is irrelevant, by definition humans have a purpose. To reject that we have purpose is the same as rejecting that we have instinct. To exist is to be. That is a purpose of humanity.

    Its irrelevant if an action will be remembered or not. Why does ending up the same negate having a purpose? What led you to that conclusion? To reject life because of this is irrational. Utterly irrational. What part of this is rational? "God doesn't exist so i'm not going to bother living." Are you meaning to tell me you'd commit suicide? No, you wouldn't as despite everything you'd want to live because suicide is irrational. Because its in our nature to want to live. To reject living is to reject being human and so is irrational .To say otherwise is utterly delusional. Its our purpose to live.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 25, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which would you rather be...?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22

Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.