Is there a God?

[Tarsonis]

you're right, I should have said heat. I was rushing.

Changing the word to heat does not change anything in the response. Since cold is simply molecules moving slower, while hot is simply molecules moving more quickly.

Except heat refers to engery transference, rather than the subjective feelings/states of hot and cold.

[Godular]

Amusingly, hot and cold are subjective.

Lobsters and slowly increasing the heat till they boil and all that.

XKCD did an astronomy joke about that recently.

The Maine Sequence.

Heh

[Kowani]

Nope, opinion after all cannot be objective.

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

I think a more accurate term would be function as if they were objective.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

Nope, opinion after all cannot be objective.

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

So opinion is just law now? Amusing.

Also you still haven't responded to my other responses.

[Kiu Ghesik]

If that god is omnipotent, then it becomes objective.

By definition an opinion cannot be objective.

It's pointless to go against it, though, if that god has the ability to enforce it on such a level it might as well be. Unless all you want is a gotcha.

Not to mention that an omnipotent god could snap their finger-equivalent-things and go "nope, it's an objective fact now, fuck you". They can do whatever the hell they want, hence omnipotent.

[Tarsonis]

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

I think a more accurate term would be function as if they were objective.

I don't see a difference, but if that's more clear then alright.

[Neanderthaland]

I mean, we're on the subject of the morality of God, and if you don't consider any possibilities other than "Good" and "Mysterious" to be relevant. Then you're not taking the topic seriously. It's just La Xinga style, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" at that point.

You haven't given me any specific alternatives, you're just alluding to possible alternatives. I don't have to consider something not stated.

You seemed to know what they were a moment ago when you didn't consider them relevant.

But it's just as plausible that your God is basically the Simurgh and leading us all to a greater and inevitable doom - and that "good" things are just a mysterious step in achieving that - as the opposite. There's no reason to bias in favor of one or the other, except that you want one to be true.

[Jodilee]

In the last week or so, I have been wondering about this question. The most common evidence given for the Christian God can also be used to support the existence of other gods and the truth of other religions, or it seems to rely on fallacies. Pascal's wager doesn't acknowledge the possibility of other gods, evolution seems to disprove an intelligent designer, and so on. That seems to indicate that there is no real evidence for God. Instead, it's possible that belief in God requires having faith with no evidence at all, and potentially evidence that contradicts his existence entirely. So why should we believe in God, NSG? Is there any better evidence that I don't know?

In my opinion, I believe in the Christian God but I believe that there is no way to prove his existence and don't know why I believe in him anymore. So, what say you, NSG?

I just believe in my own made up Religion.

Cant pick a side, if you're not on anyone's side!

[Godular]

Changing the word to heat does not change anything in the response. Since cold is simply molecules moving slower, while hot is simply molecules moving more quickly.

Except heat refers to engery transference, rather than the subjective feelings/states of hot and cold.

Half-correct.

[Neutraligon]

By definition an opinion cannot be objective.

It's pointless to go against it, though, if that god has the ability to enforce it on such a level it might as well be. Unless all you want is a gotcha.

Not to mention that an omnipotent god could snap their finger-equivalent-things and go "nope, it's an objective fact now, fuck you". They can do whatever the hell they want, hence omnipotent.

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality. If I code a robot to do something, does that robot doing it make it moral? No it is amoral. If I use force to make an ant do something, does that make that ant doing it moral? No it is amoral.

[Kiu Ghesik]

It's pointless to go against it, though, if that god has the ability to enforce it on such a level it might as well be. Unless all you want is a gotcha.

Not to mention that an omnipotent god could snap their finger-equivalent-things and go "nope, it's an objective fact now, fuck you". They can do whatever the hell they want, hence omnipotent.

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality.

I don't grasp the distinction. Morality is just a specific set of principles governing right and wrong. How does "enforcing" it make it no longer morality?

[Tarsonis]

If that god is omnipotent, then it becomes objective.

By definition an opinion cannot be objective.

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

No it cannot, anymore then if god insists that strawberry milk is best milk. Gods opinion cannot be objective, because by definition opinion cannot be objective. It does not matter how powerful a being is, that does not change the fact that the opinion is still that, an opinion.

Until God wipes out all those who disagree, and that becomes an agreed upon fact.

[Godular]

In the last week or so, I have been wondering about this question. The most common evidence given for the Christian God can also be used to support the existence of other gods and the truth of other religions, or it seems to rely on fallacies. Pascal's wager doesn't acknowledge the possibility of other gods, evolution seems to disprove an intelligent designer, and so on. That seems to indicate that there is no real evidence for God. Instead, it's possible that belief in God requires having faith with no evidence at all, and potentially evidence that contradicts his existence entirely. So why should we believe in God, NSG? Is there any better evidence that I don't know?

In my opinion, I believe in the Christian God but I believe that there is no way to prove his existence and don't know why I believe in him anymore. So, what say you, NSG?

I just believe in my own made up Religion.

Cant pick a side, if you're not on anyone's side!

Ugh! Fucking neutrals! Sitting on the fence like some VULTURE...

/futurama reference

[Tarsonis]

It's pointless to go against it, though, if that god has the ability to enforce it on such a level it might as well be. Unless all you want is a gotcha.

Not to mention that an omnipotent god could snap their finger-equivalent-things and go "nope, it's an objective fact now, fuck you". They can do whatever the hell they want, hence omnipotent.

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality. If I code a robot to do something, does that robot doing it make it moral? No it is amoral. If I use force to make an ant do something, does that make that ant doing it moral? No it is amoral.

No, the police enforce laws, doesn't mean you don't have a choice to adhere to it.

[Tarsonis]

Except heat refers to engery transference, rather than the subjective feelings/states of hot and cold.

Half-correct.

Whatever.

[Neutraligon]

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality.

I don't grasp the distinction. Morality is just a specific set of principles governing right and wrong. How does "enforcing" it make it no longer morality?

If by enforce you mean that there is no choice but to act in the way god wants, then it is not morality, since there is no choice in how to act. If by enforce you mean force against the will of someone, then once again it is not morality then because the person had no choice in how they where acting. If you mean enforce a per divine punishment then once again it is not morality because coercion is being used.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality. If I code a robot to do something, does that robot doing it make it moral? No it is amoral. If I use force to make an ant do something, does that make that ant doing it moral? No it is amoral.

No, the police enforce laws, doesn't mean you don't have a choice to adhere to it.

The difference between the police and god is that one of them have tangible and realistic punishments and that their law is not their opinion.

[Tarsonis]

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

So opinion is just law now? Amusing.

God's opinion, yes.

Also you still haven't responded to my other responses.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm kinda busy. I'll get to it when I get to it.

[Neutraligon]

If the god wants to "enforce" it, then it is no longer morality. If I code a robot to do something, does that robot doing it make it moral? No it is amoral. If I use force to make an ant do something, does that make that ant doing it moral? No it is amoral.

No, the police enforce laws, doesn't mean you don't have a choice to adhere to it.

The police enforcing laws does not have anything to do with morality. It has long be known that what is legal might not be what is moral.

[Neanderthaland]

Ah, but you see, your authority doesn't enforce it.

You say that they'll enforce it after we're dead, without providing any proof,

Proof was given via revelation. Granted were about 2000 years removed from that event, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It does mean that I was never given proof, and neither were you. And, in fact, it's impossible to know whether proof was really given. Which sort of defeats the whole point of proof.

But this is a cop who never pulls you over or gives you a ticket, just threatens a bill on your deathbed.

When the bill comes is inconsequential.

It's pretty consequential considering that people can live their entire lives without believing the bill even exists. And that, actually, we don't know whether the bill exists. Some people say it does. Some people say they were given the bill (usually a refund in these cases) on their deathbeds, but their bank accounts are always the same when you check them.

This is not a great way to maintain traffic conditions.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm kinda busy. I'll get to it when I get to it.

Then I shall await whatever mega-response is coming for me.

[Godular]

Half-correct.

Whatever.

No, I mean it. You’re half correct about the thermodynamics thing, though I’m somewhat curious as to what angle you’re working on with the argument. Is it the energy transfer or the sensation that you’re relying on?

[Tarsonis]

No, the police enforce laws, doesn't mean you don't have a choice to adhere to it.

The police enforcing laws does not have anything to do with morality. It has long be known that what is legal might not be what is moral.

But that's not the case for a being such of God. What God declares to be morally right, is morally right. His enforcing that, doesn't negate the fact that you have a choice not to adhere.

Your entire line of argumentation here is invalid.

[Tarsonis]

Whatever.

No, I mean it. You’re half correct about the thermodynamics thing, though I’m somewhat curious as to what angle you’re working on with the argument. Is it the energy transfer or the sensation that you’re relying on?

Two diametrically things cannot be the same thing. It's not a perfect metaphor but it works well enough to get the point across.

[Neutraligon]

The police enforcing laws does not have anything to do with morality. It has long be known that what is legal might not be what is moral.

But that's not the case for a being such of God. What God declares to be morally right, is morally right. His enforcing that, doesn't negate the fact that you have a choice not to adhere.

Your entire line of argumentation here is invalid.

Yes it is, if god enforces through not permitting any other action to take place, then it is not morality because the individuals had no choice, it is simply the state of the universe. If it is enforced through some other force and people are able to form their opinions, then it is not morality because it is against the opinion of the person being forced, an if it is not forced but instead pushed using divine favor/punishment then it is not morality it is simply coercion.
No it does not become morally right hen god dictates it, anymore then my torturing an ant becomes morally right simply because I am so much more powerful then that ant. You are arguing that morality is simply might makes right.