|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:10 PM
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SimonBelmont
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:18 PM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent?
She?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:19 PM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
Before I can respond I need a quick clarification: When you say, "if god was proven to be non-existent", you mean to say (more practically) "if god does not exist"?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:35 PM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
Before I can respond I need a quick clarification: When you say, "if god was proven to be non-existent", you mean to say (more practically) "if god does not exist"?
I sense that you are fixin' to play a little word game trick. Maybe not. I know that it is not possible to prove that a thing above reason does not exist. Let's go with "if god does not exist."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:37 PM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent? She? Why not? Or it? Does god have a penis and balls? |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheTrueTheist
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:41 PM
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent?
Evidently, many posters here like Rostos would go out and rape, kill, and molest people, since 'on naturalism' people have no innate sense of rightness or wrongness. 
...wait... maybe morality isn't grounded in a God after all?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:41 PM
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
Before I can respond I need a quick clarification: When you say, "if god was proven to be non-existent", you mean to say (more practically) "if god does not exist"? I know that it is not possible to prove that a thing above reason does not exist. Let's go with "if god does not exist."
Then your question is strange. You might as well be asking, "if water didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"? Or, "if air didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"?
Well, if water didn't exist neither would I. If air didn't exist, neither would I. If God didn't exist, neither would I.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SimonBelmont
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:52 PM
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent? She? Why not? Or it? Does god have a penis and balls?
No, but He doesn't have a vagina and breasts either. When people refer to God as a He, they're not implying He's male.
But when people refer to God as a she, they are implying that He's a female. And this is done to stir the pot and to be more politically correct.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 03:58 PM
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
Before I can respond I need a quick clarification: When you say, "if god was proven to be non-existent", you mean to say (more practically) "if god does not exist"? I know that it is not possible to prove that a thing above reason does not exist. Let's go with "if god does not exist." Then your question is strange. You might as well be asking, "if water didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"? Or, "if air didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"? Well, if water didn't exist neither would I. If air didn't exist, neither would I. If God didn't exist, neither would I.
You should know that that is a false analogy of most egregious kind.
You have revealed the flaw in your conclusions. You assume that god exists and that it cannot be otherwise or we wouldn't exist. I understand that you are well versed in philosophy and that you are sincere in your conclusions.
So, god exists and everything that makes that conclusion seem absurd cannot be true because god exists and there must be a clearly rational reason to explain it even if that explanation is not verifiable. That is not reason. That is wishful thinking.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SimonBelmont
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:03 PM
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
Before I can respond I need a quick clarification: When you say, "if god was proven to be non-existent", you mean to say (more practically) "if god does not exist"? I know that it is not possible to prove that a thing above reason does not exist. Let's go with "if god does not exist." Then your question is strange. You might as well be asking, "if water didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"? Or, "if air didn't exist, how would that change your behavior"? Well, if water didn't exist neither would I. If air didn't exist, neither would I. If God didn't exist, neither would I. You should know that that is a false analogy of most egregious kind. You have revealed the flaw in your conclusions. You assume that god exists and that it cannot be otherwise or we wouldn't exist. I understand that you are well versed in philosophy and that you are sincere in your conclusions. So, god exists and everything that makes that conclusion seem absurd cannot be true because god exists and there must be a clearly rational reason to explain it even if that explanation is not verifiable. That is not reason. That is wishful thinking.
I'm going to have to agree with Archsage. If God didn't exist, then we probably wouldn't either.
It's also difficult to get outside of our own heads and world. In this world, there is a God and objective moral values and obligations, so what would a world in which there were no objective moral values look like? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what a world where logic didn't exist would look like.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:06 PM
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
For those of you that conclude that god exists and that she established objective morality or endowed you with moral intuition, what kinds of behavior would you engage in if god was proven to be non-existent? She? Why not? Or it? Does god have a penis and balls? You should be our court jester: God is not not a male but he is definitely not a female. Does god the father have a dick? What about the son? The holy ghost--well, that's just scary. No, but He doesn't have a vagina and breasts either. When people refer to God as a He, they're not implying He's male. But when people refer to God as a she, they are implying that He's a female. And this is done to stir the pot and to be more politically correct. |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SimonBelmont
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:22 PM
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
You should be our court jester: God is not not a male but he is definitely not a female. Does god the father have a dick? What about the son? The holy ghost--well, that's just scary.
Your ideas are based on theological and philosophical ignorance.
First, God isn't a biological life form. He's a necessary immaterial being. Therefore, He wouldn't have reproductive organs of any sort. Second, in Christianity, it is never said that the nature of God is a material being with reproductive organs. Third, when people refer to God as He, they do not mean He's a male. They're merely referring to Him in the masculine form, which is the proper way to refer to a person with an unknown gender. Fourth, and I'd like for Archmage to jump in to correct me here if I'm wrong, God isn't a male biological life form, but He is masculine. A person can be masculine or feminine without possessing reproductive organs.
Finally, based on your responses and questions regarding whether or not God has a penis just because He is normally referred to in the masculine form, I presume what you meant by referring to God as a female is that He has a vagina or breasts. I may be wrong about that presumption though. Perhaps you were just referring to God in the feminine form, but that would be improper English.
So, in any case, it would seem you were trying to stir the pot while appealing to misguided political correctness.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:23 PM
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmont
I'm going to have to agree with Archsage. If God didn't exist, then we probably wouldn't either.
At least you put the word "probably" in there. That is more open-minded and less dogmatic than Archsage.
Quote: It's also difficult to get outside of our own heads and world.
Thank you for admitting that you find this difficult.
Quote: In this world, there is a God and objective moral values and obligations,
You would be hard-pressed to prove that they are one and the same.
Quote: so what would a world in which there were no objective moral values look like? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what a world where logic didn't exist would look like.
The question was: If God did not exist, how would that change your behaviour?
It was not: If neither morals, obligations, nor logic existed, how would that change your behaviour?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
SimonBelmont
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:26 PM
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
You would be hard-pressed to prove that they are one and the same.
How so?
Quote: The question was: If God did not exist, how would that change your behaviour?
It was not: If neither morals, obligations, nor logic existed, how would that change your behaviour?
I'm just going to end up repeating myself though. Entertaining the notion that there is no God and objective moral values is like entertaining the idea of there being no logic. It doesn't make any sense. Perhaps I have a poor imagination.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 07/01/12 at 04:39 PM
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontQuote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
You should be our court jester: God is not not a male but he is definitely not a female. Does god the father have a dick? What about the son? The holy ghost--well, that's just scary. Your ideas are based on theological and philosophical ignorance. First, God isn't a biological life form. He's a necessary immaterial being. Therefore, He wouldn't have reproductive organs of any sort. Second, in Christianity, it is never said that the nature of God is a material being with reproductive organs. Third, when people refer to God as He, they do not mean He's a male. They're merely referring to Him in the masculine form, which is the proper way to refer to a person with an unknown gender.
That is not the proper way to speak. Some languages have gender-neutral pronouns. Since English doesn't, enlightened folk of recent decades have come up with better ways of talking. Your statement is simply wrong.
Fourth, and I'd like for Archmage to jump in to correct me here if I'm wrong, God isn't a male biological life form, but He is masculine. A person can be masculine or feminine without possessing reproductive organs.
Quote: Finally, based on your responses and questions regarding whether or not God has a penis just because He is normally referred to in the masculine form, I presume what you meant by referring to God as a female is that He has a vagina or breasts. I may be wrong about that presumption though. Perhaps you were just referring to God in the feminine form, but that would be improper English.
Again, you are simply wrong and unenlightened. There are very devout, well-educated, English-speaking Christians who regularly refer to God as she. If, as you say, God is genderless, then that is correct.
Quote: So, in any case, it would seem you were trying to stir the pot while appealing to misguided political correctness.
Please broaden your horizons, Simon Belmont. I don't know why Jake said "she," but for some Christians there is more at stake here than political correctness. For some people, faith itself itself is at stake. What Christians are saying on this thread about God being neither male nor female is not correct, either. The Judeo-Christian God is clearly depicted throughout all scripture as being distinctly male. The father-figure is used throughout both testaments to describe God and God's relationship with humans. There would be so much more to say on this but it's off-topic.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
