re: I have a quiet envy of religious people

quote:

---

Now see, this is completely untrue in my honest opinion.

---

But it's not, and it's provable by logic.

quote:

---

They think there can be no morals without a god

---

That is not what I said, on two counts:

1. I said a transcendent moral authority, not necessarily a God. I agree that a personal God is much more likely to be what a transcendent moral authority looks like than a conception such as an impersonal force like gravity, for example, but it is quite possible to conceive of that authority being characterized differently than God.

2. I didn't say there could be no "morals" at all. I said the concept of morality as we commonly conceive of it. That is, something is actually wrong (or right). Not something that simply makes any particular individual feel emotionally good (or bad). Not something that simply (supposedly) increases survival value for the species. A moral principle that evokes moral outrage when violated.

Like racism. I'll get back to that in a minute.

First of all, no offense, but like many arguments from utility yours is at most half-baked.

There's the obvious self-refuting inherent assumption that the survival of the human race has any moral value at all if all we are is meat puppets animated by random electrochemical impulses that create an illusion of consciousness.

So the human race's survival acumen decreases. So what? Of what moral consequence is it for the whole race to die out if the nature of human life is that random and meaningless in the first place?

Secondly, what about when empathy is what decreases survival value? Like when we allow people with serious genetic flaws to live and pass them on? Or allow elderly people to use vast healthcare resources to keep themselves alive when they are far past adding any significant survival value to society? Or when we oppose racism? It should be noted—since the claim is that empathy is biologically wired into humans (and also taught...more half-bakery)—that no animals that I am aware of, no matter how socially developed they are, operate that way.

How could that decrease survival value, you ask? The research shows that—despite the liberal narrative for the past umpteen years—ethnically and culturally "diverse" societies have more problems than homogenous societies. And the ratio is pretty proportional—the more diverse the society, the more severe the societal problems. We know this, though it is not often admitted.

Now, a thought system like Christianity can explain why we would oppose racism or use scarce resources to keep elderly people alive or allow weak or faulty genes to be passed on.

A thought system that claims that human beings are soulless automatons without choice simply reacting to random electrochemical impulses and responding purely to the extrapolation of survival utility cannot. Not logically.

Third, it's never explained when this biological empathy argument is made why it would make any sense that the survival value of the group would be biologically prioritized rather than the survival of the individual. Evolution is based on the survival of the fittest. Not survival of society, or even survival of the species.

Fourth, you make the classic mistake every person who has ever made this argument makes. You equate the logical fact that no morality as we commonly conceive of the term is possible without a transcendent moral authority with the idea that it is making the claim that people have to be told by God what is right and wrong or else they wouldn't be able to figure it out. That's not what it means.

Fifth, this statement of yours right here is basically saying the same thing I said that you claim you disagree with: "...but because instead, it makes YOU feel good about YOU."

Yeah, that's what I said. Without a transcendent moral authority you can call something moral all day long, but all it means is that you personally prefer it and feel good when you engage it. So what? Ted Bundy felt good when he murdered women. Without a transcendent moral authority, who are you to tell him his moral code is flawed just because it doesn't agree with yours?

Sixth, in case your response to that question wants to circle back to the argument from utility again, let's examine that claim. What people who argue from utility don't think about is that it requires an extrapolation in order to be relevant, and the extrapolation itself is not reality, it's just a hypothetical construct that isn't going to happen. Saying, "Well, that's immoral because if everyone did it, the race wouldn't survive," ignores the fact that no matter what, everyone's not going to do it. That's a pretty big problem with that thought process. PLUS, as mentioned earlier, the it's morally irrelevant whether the human race survives without a transcendent moral authority.

Seventh, your entire post suffers from misunderstanding the claim in the first place. No one is claiming that you can't get your kids to act a certain way. No one is claiming that you can't teach children empathy without religion. or with religion. Or with God. Or without God. people can be compelled or taught to act according to just about any system one can conceive.

But acting in accordance with a system based on societal survival (or anything else) doesn't make any of those actions moral or immoral. Not according to how we commonly use those words.

quote:

---

peace

---

It’s learned thru faith & real life experiences.

When you realize the absolute truth it is indescribable. Wish this for all.

quote:

---

You think an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, who himself must be questioned of origin, is more likely than random chance on a very large planet where the opportunities for such things coming together are uncountable?

---

If there isn't something like that going on, then not only do you have no basis for morality as we commonly conceive of it, but you have no basis to trust anything your brain tells you about anything. It's just a piece of meat randomly responding to electrochemical impulses. So consciousness itself is nothing but an illusion. Free will is nothing but an illusion. Reason is an illusion. You only believe what you believe about anything because your brain randomly responding to stimuli by way of electrochemical impulses dictates that you do. In fact, there is no such thing as "you." It's an illusion.

That's what logic necessarily dictates if there is no transcendent Being. You don't live as though that is true. No one does. You implicitly violate your own claims every time you act as though your thoughts are trustworthy, every time you act as though anything has any meaning, any time you act as though you are an individual personality.

Could that be true? I guess. But you want to talk about a stretch.

quote:

---

You can walk this back as far as you want and the deists will always try and end the journey at 'God'. But then I would ask, what created God? What created the creator of God? Etc. Can there be an endpoint? Logic dictates that there can't.

---

Man, no offense, but most of your reasoning on this is pretty simplistic.

Answer me this: what is the universal definition of God? Not god. God. What is the actual definition of the word?

quote:

---

Answer me this: what is the universal definition of God? Not god. God. What is the actual definition of the word?

---

Not to butt in, wt...but I think that all Religions and even Science would imagine that 'God' is the UNIFIED TOTAL of all that can be imagined. Conscious, Self-Awareness - expressed in the form of both manifest 'Entities' - aware by degree...with 'God' being the sum total of ALL Entities lumped together (as Spirit)….and the sum total of all manifest Energy and Matter. Energy and Matter being a manifestation of said Conscious Awareness. And 'manifestation' (the Process) as well; as such a 'Process' would truthfully imply that the Relativity of Time would as well be included. There is no such thing as 'time'...in a Universe of Spirit. Einstein chased the proof of a "Unified Theory of Everything"...but IMO, he was chasing his tail. It is a fallacy to seek a 'beginning' of an unlimited -in all aspects - Aware Entity which has no beginning.

That is the 'rabbit hole' version. Simple version is UNITY; 'Unity' being defined (or refined) as a/the state of LOVE. God IS Love; total unity, of all that exist. The Idea of Love exist for those who know and validate it; same with Beauty. "for those that seek to know God...they must FIRST BELIEVE that God exist". If one is scared of taking that empirical leap...then play it safe and take Jesus' advice...put you belief in Love. And the rest of blocks will fall into place.

Heard we're getting beautiful sunsets this weekend. That's a plus...given all the negativity.

Empirical scenario: Two people die...one BELIEVES that God exists as the essence of their 'self'; God being the total 'reservoir' of all self-aware being. The other believes that there is no 'awareness' in the total, universal reservoir of Matter and Energy. Both individual's atoms begin to dissipate into the Total Reservoir...and with said dissipation...so does their self-awareness. From an empirical pov...this process is identical.

Identical, but for one thing; such being THE critical aspect of 'feeling'. Feeling being the very essence that drives all life action. The Believer - taking Jesus' advice that "he that seeks to save his self, shall lose it...but he that seeks to lose their self for Him ("God IS Love"/total Unity)...does not feel that the dissipation of their Self is negative...but rather a transformation wherein they may perceive without limit...the essence of God. God being Love. What a RIDE!

The Non-Believer full well knows/believes - via their non-belief - that dissipation into a loveless and cold Universe of feelingless Matter and Energy, as opposed to the life of love and beauty that losing life held...is a tragic event. The feeling therein...would be..."hell", in relation to the Believer's feeling.

It is ALL about FEELING. Love vs. the loss of Love. The loss or absence of Love being 'evil', sinful and ultimate and tragic pain. Eternally so...for that PARTICULAR Individual. Now whether said 'Individual(s), become a 'self' in some future life - reaping/becoming the sum total of the beliefs which they CHOSE to validate and serve...that is another rabbit hole. My personal view (today) is that such a manifestation in another form/life, is both Scripturally sound and empirically valid as well, given the Relativity of Time(less) infinity.

Bottom line. Take Jesus' advice. Embrace Love over the Flesh. Go to (Feeling) 'Heaven'.

quote:

---

Too rational. Too questioning. Too doubtful.

The burden of multiple degrees and the life of an *intellectual."

---

I have multiple degrees, am overly rational, question/doubt most everything, and still believe. Questioning what I believe actually made my faith stronger. It's possible so don't give up.

You’ve definitely convinced yourself that God’s the only way this works, but I think you’re answering questions that don’t need to be. If you need an answer for EVERYTHING, then sure...God.

I don’t seek answers to questions that ultimately make no difference to me so it’s pretty easy to construct it all without a creator.

I'm not saying that there is nothing compelling in your theory—particularly with regard to heaven and hell—but it has nothing to do with the existence of God or not, and it is just as subject to the answer to that question as any other theory.

For example, feeling being the central hub around which your theory turns looks very different if there is no transcendent Being to provide meaning for it. If that's the case, it is as meaningless as anything else, AND, no one chooses it because it's just the reaction of random impulses.

Here's where I would disagree.

I believe it was Francis Schaeffer who talked about "open" vs "closed" systems.

Your conception is a closed system. It's basically pantheism, which violates the rules of logical thesis/antithesis dynamics.

If God is everything, then everything is God. If everything is God, then nothing is not-God. And if everything is God, then nothing is God in the sense that the word is commonly defined and used.

What I'm looking for is the concept of transcendence. For the word God to be meaningful as such, there has to be an antithesis. There has to be God and non-God. A creator of a system can't be part of the system.

This is typically part of any definition of God, and this is the reason why.

Therefore, this question of, "If God created everything, who created God?" is nonsense. That necessitates a closed system, which doesn't work for any conception of God other than Greek mythology or pantheism, both of which are quickly discarded due to their specific problems.