What a world without God means

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And with God, it becomes acceptable to do anything that the individual - or the church, or scholars, or charlatans - thinks that God has commanded.

    By the way, there is not much consensus between believers of different stripes and unbelievers about what is good and what is bad, so this argument doesn't hold. Even if someone believes in a god, he can still do 'bad' things consistent with what his God commands, but not with what you or I think is bad. In short, belief in a god is no insurance against 'bad' actions, and this is a roundabout false dilemma (much like Pascal's discredited wager).
    Nope, religious people disagreeing over morality does nothing to shift the fact that for a successful moral argument against God you need to appeal to objective moral values, otherwise you have nothing but an opinion which is not evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Morality would need to be objectively measured for a successful moral argument against God's existence. Evolution does not provide this objecitivty (we could have evolved with a completely different set of moral codes), so where are you getting it from?
    Why would evolution provide the objectivity? Morality varies from person to person. If morality occurs without first learning the consequences of one's actions, then why do people have varying moral standards? (and yes, that is what you're trying to imply)
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That's a logical fallacy right there. You've assumed that god is required for objective morality to exist but you've got nothing to back it up. Socrates disproved your first point in his Euthyphro dilemma.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3mX0YRrjM
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I'm sorry but possibly upon your death, and certainly upon humanity's death, it objectively really did mean nothing
    I don't care about objectivity! I care about me. You can tell me a million times over that when I die, everything I've done will have meant nothing - you'll just be wrong a million times.
    Plus, if we consider the butterfly effect, everything I do means something. Everyone on this planet makes little waves that go into the future, and I'd prefer that to being stuck for eternity pondering my own life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So, what if God created you to die and never exist again?
    :colone:
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rachel58)
    I don't care about objectivity! I care about me. You can tell me a million times over that when I die, everything I've done will have meant nothing - you'll just be wrong a million times.
    Plus, if we consider the butterfly effect, everything I do means something. Everyone on this planet makes little waves that go into the future, and I'd prefer that to being stuck for eternity pondering my own life.
    Exactly, you care about you! This is a perfectly valid response - but it's a delusion. But, as I said in the original post, if it works for you then good, run with it! But I care about the truth and I live accordingly (if that doesn't sound too egotistical - OK it does but whatever)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Exactly, you care about you! This is a perfectly valid response - but it's a delusion. But, as I said in the original post, if it works for you then good, run with it! But I care about the truth and I live accordingly (if that doesn't sound too egotistical - OK it does but whatever)
    Well, that's your opinion, which I don't care about because again, I care about me. I think I'm not delusional and that I'm living the real true life, in my own opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rachel58)
    Well, that's your opinion, which I don't care about because again, I care about me. I think I'm not delusional and that I'm living the real true life, in my own opinion.
    Well I'm happy for you in your delusion
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Why would evolution provide the objectivity? Morality varies from person to person. If morality occurs without first learning the consequences of one's actions, then why do people have varying moral standards? (and yes, that is what you're trying to imply)
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    So, what if God created you to die and never exist again?
    :colone:
    Probably wouldn't have told us about heaven?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    This absolutely is not designed as a proof of God's existence. I even said that 'I can't know for sure if there is any truth in theism'!

    I'm merely drawing to people's attention the fact that atheism leads to a colder, harsher, less fulfilling, more unjust, purposeless reality, and that we are offered a credible chance out of this, that we would be insane not to take.
    I would have to argue that the point you are making, is similar to the argument which states it is better to have an imaginary £1,000,000 than a real £1 because £1,000,000 is better than having £1...
    This is the problem, people are in denial about reality, and say 'wouldn't it be better if x?' No because x is not how the world we live in is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    William Craig answers the Euthyphro dilemma by arguing that it is a false dilemma
    And as we know, WLC is the objective authority on all that is true, and that his counterargument to the dilemma is not at all constructed to defend a pre-existing opinion (held for other reasons) that WLC is unwilling to change. :rolleyes:

    You will have to do better than name-dropping as a substitute for having your own reasoned rebuttal to the other member's argument.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    for a successful moral argument against God you need to appeal to objective moral values
    You're shifting the goalposts here - your initial argument was about how terrible a world without god would be, not about whether there is a compelling moral argument against belief in God (something you further confirmed to someone else who thought this was about proving God's existence, on the first page). There was a clear false dilemma in your initial proposition - it assumed that morality is already agreed upon and that it is therefore possible in a godless worldview to do 'bad' when no-one is looking. But we don't know that 'bad' is the same in all scenarios, so it's an invalid comparison.

    If you want an argument about the existence of God, then start a new thread about that; it has no relevance to what you said to begin with.

    otherwise you have nothing but an opinion which is not evidence.
    As a reminder, belief in a specific God and in a specific moral code is also an opinion. You seem to be arguing as though there are only two positions on this, when there are clearly more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    How do you feel knowing that no matter how many challenges you confront, you still achieve nothing? You will end up the same as someone who confronted no challenges, or someone who had a miserable life, or someone who neer existed at all? Theism offers a chance to give meaning to your endeavours - why not take it up? Notice I say theism, not religion. Religion is primarily a human construction, it can only help in getting people closer to God, but none is the answer.

    It doesn't matter how I feel about it.It doesnt change reality.If someone believes in god and he is not really there then it makes no difference does it? I judge the evidence for god to be poor.The evidence against god is much greater.Sure theism offers a chance but how good is that chance? Its not even 50/50 its more like 99/0.1.Tbh I feel grateful to be able to experience the world and the universe.I'm just sorry that I can experience so little of it.Seriously there are trillions of stars and planets out there and its really frustrating that we can only experience a tiny portion of a tiny world.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lets take Jon and Jim. Jon is an athiest Jim belives in a god.

    Jon does not murder people and is a nice person because he knows it is unnaceptable and not a nice thing to do. Jon could do some bad things and no one would know like spitting in somones drink.

    Jim Does not murder people and is a nice person because there is some god that will send him to eternal hellfire if he does bad things.
    Jon could do evil things and no one but god will know like spitting in somones drink He is fearful of god and hell so he does not do this.

    I would say Jon is a better person if all aspects are the same, Morality nor meaning comes from religion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    It struck me today just what a world without theism really and truly means. It means, simply, that what anyone does in life is intrinsically devoid of all purpose. Whether I die this very second, or live another 80 years, becoming the most successful person in the history of mankind, the net outcome is the same. I will forget everything I ever did; I will be unaware of having ever done anything; “I” won’t even remember having ever existed, and it will be as if I never did. Everyone who I ever saw or spoke to will also rot away into the soil, and when the universe grows cold or the sun expands, so will all humanity. No one will remember anything, because ‘we’ won’t even be capable of thought, let alone memory – everything any human ever did will be completely gone.

    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. You will feel exactly the same regardless of what you do in life. Now you might think that even if you don’t remember, you still want to be remembered by everyone else. Surely that’s worth striving for. But again, these people will all rot away into the earth, and forget about their own existence, let alone yours. Ultimately your contribution makes no difference (this extends even to the great figures of history, when humanity dies out, their achievements do too). You may also say that life is simply what you make of it: if you want your offspring to be your purpose in life, then they are. This, however, is no more than a delusion – essentially conning yourself into thinking you have a purpose. Your offspring will rot away, and so will theirs, and so will theirs, and so on, until all humanity is gone, and it’s exactly the same as if no offspring had ever existed.That’s not a purpose, that’s utterly pointless.

    Not only, then, is life purposeless if you’re unhappy or in pain (simply, why bother going on?), but equally purposeless if you’re having a great time, as, once you’re dead, you won’t ever remember that you had a great time, or even what a ‘great time’ is. Some people don’t worry about this though – they’re perfectly happy in their self-made fabrications of purpose in life. If this works for you, then fine. But I know it’s a lie, and so do you. There is only one possible escape. I can’t know for sure if there is any truth in theism, but even if there were the faintest chance, it would be worth taking a million times.

    Please post your thoughts below!
    Your whole argument relies on there being a need for an afterlife for life to be purposeful. Or the fact that in order for life to be meaningful we need purpose. But the fact of the matter is, purpose cant be measured. It is something theists place upon the race as a defining trait as otherwise we are just animals, it is a comfort.

    What happens if your 'afterlife' doesnt exist? Does life have purpose? By your definition it wont but that doesnt necessarily matter. Because thats how you class purpose. In purely biological terms the purpose of life is simple. We exist so our purpose is to be. But for many this isn't enough. They need some higher purpose to feel satisfied and im sorry but i find that to be weak.

    Fact is, life may very well have no higher purpose but you look too much to the future for purpose. Why do we have to look to the future for purpose? If anything that is delusional. You are living with this delusion that for anything to matter there needs to be a future.

    I ask you this, if it turns out that there is no afterlife and you were simply satisfied with living in the present: would you rather live happy or sad? You'd choose happy each time.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    That doesn't really refute the dilemma, but rather seems to reword it -

    "However, this counterargument really falls into the first category. The question becomes: is something good because it is part of god's nature or is it part of god's nature because it is good. The false dichotomy can be better stated as the following true dichotomy: when we define 'good,' do we start from god (or his nature, etc.), or do we start from something else. If we choose the former, good is arbitrary, as good then stems from whatever god happens to be (there is no guarantee that justice, honor etc. being good). If we choose the latter, then goodness is independent of god. The choice, as always, is between arbitrary or external good."

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...God.27s_nature

    The Epicurean can shed some light on to this.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    And as we know, WLC is the objective authority on all that is true, and that his counterargument to the dilemma is not at all constructed to defend a pre-existing opinion (held for other reasons) that WLC is unwilling to change. :rolleyes:

    You will have to do better than name-dropping as a substitute for having your own reasoned rebuttal to the other member's argument.



    You're shifting the goalposts here - your initial argument was about how terrible a world without god would be, not about whether there is a compelling moral argument against belief in God (something you further confirmed to someone else who thought this was about proving God's existence, on the first page). There was a clear false dilemma in your initial proposition - it assumed that morality is already agreed upon and that it is therefore possible in a godless worldview to do 'bad' when no-one is looking. But we don't know that 'bad' is the same in all scenarios, so it's an invalid comparison.

    If you want an argument about the existence of God, then start a new thread about that; it has no relevance to what you said to begin with.



    As a reminder, belief in a specific God and in a specific moral code is also an opinion. You seem to be arguing as though there are only two positions on this, when there are clearly more.
    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.

    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?

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MamzZass)
    I ask you this, if it turns out that there is no afterlife and you were simply satisfied with living in the present: would you rather live happy or sad? You'd choose happy each time.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    It doesn't matter how I feel about it.It doesnt change reality.If someone believes in god and he is not really there then it makes no difference does it? I judge the evidence for god to be poor.The evidence against god is much greater.Sure theism offers a chance but how good is that chance? Its not even 50/50 its more like 99/0.1.Tbh I feel grateful to be able to experience the world and the universe.I'm just sorry that I can experience so little of it.Seriously there are trillions of stars and planets out there and its really frustrating that we can only experience a tiny portion of a tiny world.
    "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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You live for yourself but hope you make a better world in doing so.

    Better than killing the infidels because a book told you
 
 
 
Write a reply… 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: October 11, 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.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
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.