Why do you not believe in God?

[Mystic]

I have to disagree that we have to be able to rigorously define a word for it to have a concept of it.

When given two options regarding an assignment in university:

1) To be lazy and not do a good job and leave it for last day
2) To overcome lazinesss and do a good job and work on it early

I would say 2 is an action that is "Greater" then 1. Therefore whenever we can "overcome laziness", it's almost always better then "giving into laziness".

This is one example. I would say we know objectively, overcoming laziness is better then giving into it.

When giving two options given a wife:

1) Treating Wife well
2) Treating her bad

I would say 1 is greater then 2.

Treating people well in general is a greater then treating them bad.

When it comes to when people act like jerks, two options:

1) Forbear them/still love them
2) Hate them/be super angry at them.

I say option 1 is greater then option 2.

The question is how do we objectively measure this?

I believe in a metaphysical basis to greatness and that we are linked to it. In so far as we are closer to it in a perception to the basis, the more correct we are, but there is some things we almost all are correct in.

This is not to say because I believe in metaphysical, I don't think there is chemicals or parts of brain associated with the feelings, no I believe there is connection between the brain and the metaphysical, so definitely I believe there will be chemicals and parts of brain associated with the feelings.

Heroic nature is greater then self-centered nature for example.

To believe in greatness however requires me to believe there is basis to all levels of greatness.

That basis to me, is God.

[Epimethean]

So god, to you, is an aesthetic.

[Mystic]

So god, to you, is an aesthetic.

I can't read your mind, so perhaps you should expand.

[Angrboda]

Better, worse, greater, are calls relative to some desire, or some aversion. If it matters not whether you prosper or fail, all roads are equally good.

The laziness example only matters if failure is unpleasant, and we desire to avoid the unpleasant. This is thoroughly subjective.

The objective has no such interests. Indeed, some might suggest that if we fail, other species will prosper from our not nuking the environment. Whose desires or interests are objective? Ours? The cockroach's? Or neither?


"By convention there are sweet and bitter, hot and cold, by convention there is color; but in truth there are atoms and the void."
— Democritus


You might be interested to read what I wrote (stole) about in the "What Do You Know About God And The Afterlife" thread. It's somewhat disorganized and not polemical, but I think it gets there.

[Ryantology]

I have to disagree that we have to be able to rigorously define a word for it to have a concept of it.

To simply have a concept, no. To state that this concept is objective, however, demands rigor.

The examples you offered are easy and simple choices, but many choices in life are highly ambiguous. Sometimes there simply isn't a right answer, and many times the 'better' choice is not obvious at all. And, even easy choices can have unforeseen consequences. If I let a car merge ahead of me, I'm being courteous. But, what if that car ends up hitting a kid two later, a kid they would not have hit if I was selfish and let them wait because they might never have been close to each other? It isn't my fault because you can't know something like that will happen, and yet it happened because of something I did. You just can't know. So, is greatness intent? Accident? Both?

The other major problem with a God of infinite greatness is that that old Problem of Evil. If greatness is a measure of being/doing good, as you appear to be saying, then clearly God is not infinitely great.

[Mystic]

The other major problem with a God of infinite greatness is that that old Problem of Evil. If greatness is a measure of being/doing good, as you appear to be saying, then clearly God is not infinitely great.

The old argument for evil has been debunked. But there is a stronger version of the argument, which I presented here, and to be honest, I don't know how to refute it. It seems logically valid and every premise seems true. But the truth of it is not decisive like a mathematical proof. It does appeal to our ignorance, and says since we don't know an explanation for x and y and z given a benevolent creator exists, then there is none. So it's not cold hard proof, but it does seem that each premise is true as far as we can see although it's unproven. The more we exhaust all possible explanations, the more it seems the problem of evil is unsolvable and a proof that God doesn't exist.

So if you deny God exists on this basis, I would say this gives a moral face to Strong Atheism.

[Skepsis]

I have to disagree that we have to be able to rigorously define a word for it to have a concept of it.

We have words in order to convery meaning, to convey a cocept. A word is useless unless you can convery the concept. An undefined word is useless. If I were to call you a sharlfaldorp, what would you take that to mean?

When given two options regarding an assignment in university:

1) To be lazy and not do a good job and leave it for last day
2) To overcome lazinesss and do a good job and work on it early

I would say 2 is an action that is "Greater" then 1. Therefore whenever we can "overcome laziness", it's almost always better then "giving into laziness".

The reason you see this as better is because the outcome of being lazy is nearly always worse than that of being conscientous. However, the concept is NOT objective if there is an exception. It isn't objectively wrong to be lazy, because being lazy may have caused you to stay at home and avoid a fire at the university.

When giving two options given a wife:

1) Treating Wife well
2) Treating her bad

I would say 1 is greater then 2.

Treating people well in general is a greater then treating them bad.

When it comes to when people act like jerks, two options:

1) Forbear them/still love them
2) Hate them/be super angry at them.

I say option 1 is greater then option 2.

Generally, the former of either scenario is preferable. Generally.
This also depends on the person's definition of greatness- people can have a very warped sense of what is "greater" in reference to the treatment of themselves and others.
Druggies think it is "greater" to abuse chemicals for bodily satisfaction than not.
The Mafia thinks it is "greater" to crush the shins of back stabbers than not.

The question is how do we objectively measure this?

You have to first establish that greatness is in fact objective, otherwise you can't measure it objectively. Simple, really.

I believe in a metaphysical basis to greatness and that we are linked to it. In so far as we are closer to it in a perception to the basis, the more correct we are, but there is some things we almost all are correct in.

Why is there a basis that is needed if you have't proven that greatness is objective? The basis is personal, it seems to me.

This is not to say because I believe in metaphysical, I don't think there is chemicals or parts of brain associated with the feelings, no I believe there is connection between the brain and the metaphysical, so definitely I believe there will be chemicals and parts of brain associated with the feelings.

Bit of a run-on, don't you think?
Also, how is the brain connected to the metaphysical?

Heroic nature is greater then self-centered nature for example.
To believe in greatness however requires me to believe there is basis to all levels of greatness.
That basis to me, is God.

Like I said before, until you can prove greatness to be an objective principal, you can't prove the need for a basis other than yourself.
Dawkins parodied this, questioning why we don't need an ultimately smelly being as a basis for understanding bad smell.

[Ryantology]

The old argument for evil has been debunked. But there is a stronger version of the argument, which I presented here, and to be honest, I don't know how to refute it. It seems logically valid and every premise seems true. But the truth of it is not decisive like a mathematical proof. It does appeal to our ignorance, and says since we don't know an explanation for x and y and z given a benevolent creator exists, then there is none. So it's not cold hard proof, but it does seem that each premise is true as far as we can see although it's unproven. The more we exhaust all possible explanations, the more it seems the problem of evil is unsolvable and a proof that God doesn't exist.

I don't offer it in an attempt to prove a negative, rather to refute your assertion of a positive, which you offered as the conclusion of your argument.

So if you deny God exists on this basis, I would say this gives a moral face to Strong Atheism.

It's perhaps most accurate to say that I consider God to be so unlikely that it is not worth considering God in any way other than philosophically. God is just one of virtually infinite possible explanations for the existence of the universe, to me of no more importance or likelihood than any other you can come up with. Concepts of greatness and/or morality have no part in it, I only mention them because you framed the debate in those terms.

[DEM]

if GOD is not real, how come this prophet in the video below performs miracles in the name of JESUS? others said it's demonic, well, how can demons cast out demons?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC7giIJT0...re=related

that one link is just one of the many prophesies he made in the name of GOD JESUS CHRIST. you guys can still change your faith.

[Paul the Human]

Preacher begone! The name of Stevie compells you...