Does morality require a god?

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, I have no idea who either man is. Nope. No idea what you are talking about. I'm dumb as a rock and know nothin' and nothin'. 

You want to be impressed? Look at the grades I got in college for my philosophy classes. 

Haha, I sense I'm being toyed with?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Haha, I sense I'm being toyed with?

No, no, I'm really, really stupid. I can't even hold Hume's fork or Russell's teapot. Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

[EricE]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, no, I'm really, really stupid. I can't even hold Hume's fork or Russell's teapot. Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

Haha. So as a theist how do you prove the orbit?

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, EricE said:

Haha. So as a theist how do you prove the orbit?

First off, I don't. I accept that you can't prove the existence of God and that it's a matter of faith. It is strictly an a priori type of knowledge that is individual in nature. ( A priori is another groovy word that hipsters use to show how smart they are. It basically means "innate". Not really, but that's close enough for the sake of this discussion) That is where we will agree.

However, where we will disagree is that I will attempt to show you using the Kalam in a teapot (I just came up with that. I am so witty.)  argument why someone can believe in God. 

A teapot is a production of man. There are no natural teapots. Therefore teapots were created. If a teapot was floating in the the middle of the sky, it would have to be placed there by something because we both know teapots can't get there by themselves. Unless it was a magic teapot. Like the one used by the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. I love that movie.  So teapots must have creators. Everything that was created has a creator. Like teapots. And people. And Alice in Wonderland. 

See what I'm getting at? 

But again,  I don't even know what I'm talking about. So don't listen to a word I say. Ignore it and go read something interesting. Leave me to my coloring books and Silly Putty. 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[rpframe]

1 hour ago, EricE said:

But just because we think what we have experienced is accurate doesn't make it so.

I definitely agree.

But based on my personal experiences, I believe it is so. And not being able to "prove" it does not bother me in the slightest. That's mostly God's problem. I share my experiences and thoughts and do as God asks and expect him to take care of most of the rest.

[EricE]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

First off, I don't. I accept that you can't prove the existence of God and that it's a matter of faith. It is strictly an a priori type of knowledge that is individual in nature. ( A priori is another groovy word that hipsters use to show how smart they are. It basically means "innate". Not really, but that's close enough for the sake of this discussion) That is where we will agree.

However, where we will disagree is that I will attempt to show you using the Kalam in a teapot (I just came up with that. I am so witty.)  argument why someone can believe in God. 

A teapot is a production of man. There are no natural teapots. Therefore teapots were created. If a teapot was floating in the the middle of the sky, it would have to be placed there by something because we both know teapots can't get there by themselves. So teapots must have creators. Everything that was created has a creator. Like teapots. And people.

See what I'm getting at? 

But again,  I don't even know what I'm talking about. So don't listen to a word I say. Ignore it and go read something interesting. Leave me to my coloring books and Silly Putty. 

 

To quote another person I'm a fan of, faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason.

We can agree that teapots are created things, because (as you said) we have no example of teapots growing naturally. This is how we determine design, but comparing it to nature--whether a teapot or a watch (reference!).

Here's something crazy, I agree that all created things have a creator!

Unfortunately, where the argument from design falls apart is that we have no examples of humans, or trees, or planets, or novas being created. We only have examples of them occurring naturally. Thus it would be irrational to claim something is designed when you have no evidence or examples of that happening.

[EricE]

11 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I definitely agree.

But based on my personal experiences, I believe it is so. And not being able to "prove" it does not bother me in the slightest. That's mostly God's problem. I share my experiences and thoughts and do as God asks and expect him to take care of most of the rest.

Interesting. So one more question, and I hope it comes across as sincerely as I mean it. Does this mean you don't care whether you are believing true things or not?

[rpframe]

7 minutes ago, EricE said:

Interesting. So one more question, and I hope it comes across as sincerely as I mean it. Does this mean you don't care whether you are believing true things or not?

Oh I care about believing in true things. What does not bother me is you not believing that what I believe is true. That's your prerogative.

I may not believe what I believe if I had not experienced what I have experienced. So, it would be illogical for me to expect you to believe what I believe without having your own experiences that are similar to my own. I believe that you are capable of having personal relationship with God, but that's something that you would have to decide that you want yourself in your own time.

But seeing as you don't believe in the existence of such a being, I don't expect you to go on a wild goose chase. So, here we sit at a stalemate.. agreeing to disagree

[EricE]

8 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Oh I care about believing in true things. What does not bother me is you not believing that what I believe is true. That's your prerogative.

I may not believe what I believe if I had not experienced what I have experienced. So, it would be illogical for me to expect you to believe what I believe without having your own experiences that are similar to my own. I believe that you are capable of having personal relationship with God, but that's something that you would have to decide that you want yourself in your own time.

But seeing as you don't believe in the existence of such a being, I don't expect you to go on a wild goose chase. So, here we sit at a stalemate.. agreeing to disagree

Thanks for that response. As for me, I wouldn't be surprised if our experiences were very similar. I grew up in a strongly LDS family. Father was in the bishopric, mom was YW president. I was in leadership as a deacon, teacher, priest. Then I taught the gospel doctrine class. I was as true a believer as you could ask for. Then I was asked by a friend whether or not I could be wrong. I took several weeks to answer, trying to be as honest with myself as possible. I felt very strongly that I had a personal relationship with god, but I was forced to admit to myself that my feelings of the truth of that relationship are indistinguishable from only an imagined relationship. 

So I began to search for actual evidence. I walked through each of the classic theist arguments. I read through both the BoM and the Bible again. I spoke with church leaders (including a GM who lived down the street). And as much as I truly didn't want it to be the case, if I could only come to the conclusion that there isn't any evidence for the existence of (any) god that I have seen that isn't subjective, unfalsifiable, a fallacy, and irrational. 

I can't say there are no gods (that would be to commit the same mistakes I see those making the opposite assertion making). But the only possible rational conclusion one can draw on any subject is to refuse to believe until the evidence can be produced. If you don't demand evidence and think critically, it leaves you open to believing every harmful thing out there.

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, EricE said:

To quote another person I'm a fan of, faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason.

Once again, you make the mistake of assuming there is no good reason. You don't accept the reasons, but that does not make the reason "ungood".

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, EricE said:

We can agree that teapots are created things, because (as you said) we have no example of teapots growing naturally. This is how we determine design, but comparing it to nature--whether a teapot or a watch (reference!).

Here's something crazy, I agree that all created things have a creator!

 

We agree on these things. Yay! Let's light up a cigar in celebration.

[Guest Godless]

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

However, where we will disagree is that I will attempt to show you using the Kalam in a teapot (I just came up with that. I am so witty.)  argument why someone can believe in God. 

A teapot is a production of man. There are no natural teapots. Therefore teapots were created. If a teapot was floating in the the middle of the sky, it would have to be placed there by something because we both know teapots can't get there by themselves. Unless it was a magic teapot. Like the one used by the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. I love that movie.  So teapots must have creators. Everything that was created has a creator. Like teapots. And people. And Alice in Wonderland. 

See what I'm getting at? 

 

 

In the eyes of the unbeliever, God, like a teapot, is a creation of man.

 

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Well...not necessarily, over the past few years there are many in different groups which consider themselves Atheist/Agnostic or Agnostic/Atheist. I have never understood the reasoning on how they can be both, but there are groups which specify as such.

I generally don't like Richard Dawkins as a theology commentator, but I really like what he had to say about agnosticism in The God Delusion. He essentially put belief on a scale from 1-7.

1. I KNOW that God exists beyond all possible shadow of a doubt.

2. I cannot prove definitively that God exists, but I am very certain that he does, and I live my life accordingly.

3. I am unsure if God exists, but I am leaning towards believing that he does.

4. The answer to the question of God's existence is unknowable (pure agnostic)

5. I am unsure if God exists, but I am leaning towards believing that he does not. 

6. I cannot prove definitively that God does not exist, but I am very certain that he does not, and I live my life accordingly.

7. I KNOW that God does not exist beyond all possible shadow of a doubt.

Dawkins, like myself (and probably Eric as well, based on his posts) self-identifies with category 6. In his words, "I am agnostic to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden". He calls it "de facto atheism". All evidence (or lack thereof) points to God's non-existence. It can't be disproven entirely, but the probability is low enough to merit disbelief. Similarly, I am category 6 when it comes to unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, Odin, and the Dark Lord Chtulhu.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

In the eyes of the unbeliever, God, like a teapot, is a creation of man.

 

Totally agree. 

"God" inherently means "uncreated creator" to believers. Therein lies the issue. But I totally see what you are getting at 100%
I've read the God Delusion several times and I agree with everything you said about Dawkins too. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

1. I KNOW that God exists beyond all possible shadow of a doubt.

2. I cannot prove definitively that God exists, but I am very certain that he does, and I live my life accordingly.

3. I am unsure if God exists, but I am leaning towards believing that he does.

4. The answer to the question of God's existence is unknowable (pure agnostic)

.

I swing between 2 and 4. If you've never questioned the existence of the God in some way, shape or form-I don't understand it. No, that doesn't mean you are stupid or unquestioning, I just don't personally understand it. 

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

In the eyes of the unbeliever, God, like a teapot, is a creation of man.

 

 

In the eyes of the unbeliever even the proof and the logic of mathematics does not exist.

If you believe in the basic principles of science and mathematics (including evolution) – I can prove that the existence of G-d is possible and even probable.  And thus; if you accept Occam’s razor as proof – I can prove that G-d exists.

But I have learned that in the eyes of an unbeliever that it is quite possible to stand in the bright sun of noon day and declare it night.

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

But I have learned that in the eyes of an unbeliever that it is quite possible to stand in the bright sun of noon day and declare it night.

 

Way to broad a brush. Most unbelievers aren't like that. 

To me a college atheist is the worst because he/she thinks that 1)no one else has ever thought the way they do! They are so innovative and original.  2) every believer is a fool and atheists are just so much smarter than them.  Those are the worst kind of unbelievers. Totally obnoxious. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[EricE]

@MormonGator "God" inherently means "uncreated creator" to believers. 

Whoops! Watch the generalizations, I don't think you can even say that of all Mormons, let alone all theists. 

Looking solely at Christianity, there are thousands of denominations, each with their own version of god. And in my experience, if you asked every single person in every single pew to define god, you would have as many different answers as there are people. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

@MormonGator "God" inherently means "uncreated creator" to believers. 

Whoops! Watch the generalizations, I don't think you can even say that of all Mormons, let alone all theists. 

Looking solely at Christianity, there are thousands of denominations, each with their own version of god. And in my experience, if you asked every single person in every single pew to define god, you would have as many different answers as there are people. 

You can for most. I don't mean every single LDS, Catholic, Baptist, Assembly of God member, Presbyterian, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Wesleyan, Egyptian Orthodox...and the beat goes on. 

Generalizations are fine as well, in particular in a casual setting where everyone knows what they are. If this was a strict, academic you would be correct-but in the end, who cares? 

[EricE]

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

In the eyes of the unbeliever even the proof and the logic of mathematics does not exist.

If you believe in the basic principles of science and mathematics (including evolution) – I can prove that the existence of G-d is possible and even probable.  And thus; if you accept Occam’s razor as proof – I can prove that G-d exists.

But I have learned that in the eyes of an unbeliever that it is quite possible to stand in the bright sun of noon day and declare it night.

The Traveler

Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything. It's a philosophical guideline you can use on any question. 

It's rare to hear a theist use it, given that there are few bigger assumptions than the existence of an invisible man who cannot be independent confirmed. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[EricE]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Way to broad a brush. Most unbelievers aren't like that. 

To me a college atheist is the worst because he/she thinks that 1)no one else has ever thought the way they do! They are so innovative and original.  2) every believer is a fool and atheists are just so much smarter than them.  Those are the worst kind of unbelievers. Totally obnoxious. 

Ditto for Mormon missionaries

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Ditto for Mormon missionaries

I was never a missionary. Adult convert to the church. 

The worst kind of missionaries are the uptight ones who think they are more moral than everyone else and know everything. Same with atheists too. 

The best way to prove how smart you are is to say you are brilliant and everyone else is a dummy. Assume that only you have read important books and only you can understand them. Acting like that reeks of insecurity and stupidity. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Dupe. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, EricE said:

@MormonGator "God" inherently means "uncreated creator" to believers. 

Whoops! Watch the generalizations, I don't think you can even say that of all Mormons, let alone all theists. 

Mormons tend to walk a balanced line on this one.  God as the innate being was never created (as any of us).  He has always existed.  But the God we know now "became" God.  Does that mean he was created?  It's a matter of perspective.  I think the problem comes when we try to label something.  If we instead just try to gain an overall understanding of things, that is where we...well...understand things.

[EricE]

@Carborendum "Mormons tend to walk a balanced line on this one.  God as the innate being was never created (as any of us).  He has always existed.  But the God we know now "became" God. "

Interesting. How do you know that is true?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, EricE said:

@Carborendum "Mormons tend to walk a balanced line on this one.  God as the innate being was never created (as any of us).  He has always existed.  But the God we know now "became" God. "

Interesting. How do you know that is true?

I've already answered that, but you stopped engaging me.  I assumed you either thought I was joking or you didn't understand my answer or you just didn't read it.  If you just missed it, I'd suggest you go through my responses and see what you get out of it.  If you have questions I'm usually here.  But since it is Friday, I may not get on the board again for a few days.  I often don't come on a lot over the weekend.