Human Nature - Explained!

[randomsix]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

To necessitate such a proof, we must first determine whether God makes morality or whether God enforces morality. If he enforces morality, then yes, what God says on the subject matters, but not because God says it. If God makes morality, then such morality is arbitrary and bereft of intrinsic value.

A god that makes up a morality has no faith in its own behavioral traits as a model and is imperfect. A god that wants humans to behave as he would, would have more of a right to enforce without being a hypocrite. I may be misreading, but I see either he makes or enforces as meaning you can make but not enforce or enforce but not make. Am I goofed here? Because the ideal is both. A god who enforces something without having made it makes no sense, and a god who makes but does not enforce is simply a world builder who makes and moves on, i.e. Deism, which is possible but will make discovering him that much harder. As to the point of free will, however, enforcement takes the form of either reward or consequences, most of which simply karmic, at least as well as I can guess. A god that enforces is either a tyrant or a caring parent, depending on the intent and method of enforcement. Note I'm only trying to argue for the existence of a supernatural being here, not a denomination.

You understand most of what I mean. I should explain that the God who ""made" morality would also enforce it.

But the God who only enforces is the ideal (assuming that god is benevolent) because that means that morality is, to use a very indefinite adjective, Good, and not just something said god felt like telling us to do.

If that which is moral is moral because god likes it, then it's not morality; it's what god likes. As such, orders like the 10 commandments have no positive or negative moral value insofar as they were created by a god.

Put another way, if there is a god(s) then god(s) is concrete. Morality is abstract, and as such, cannot be created; it just is. Therefor, a god(s) cannot create morality.

EDIT: I believe that the poster above me would enjoy Tim Minchin's "Storm"

 

[Twilight_guy]

Hello existential guy! Have you read the Stranger? Here's some cannon fodder for you: If a divine presence, or some absolute does not exist, then doesn't that mean that everything is relative? And as such doesn't that mean that you are inherently wrong since your view is only true for your view and not for anyone else's view? Just some food for thought. Social constructs restrict and control how people act but they are not created from nothing. Humans created them and places them, upon themselves. The reason we have such moral structures is because in some way we want them.

 

[Nieroshai]

Spoiler: WALL-O-TEXT SNIP

snip.

1. Just because you catch religious people doing bad things doesn't mean what they do is the will of God.
2. Why stop immoral things when according to the original post, there IS NO WRONG? If it's not wrong, why stop it from happening? The reason "immoral" things are illegal is because we still somehow believe these things are immoral, and therefore believe in a moral code.
3. Let me quote Gandhi. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." Once again, Christians do not always doo what is right just because they're Christians. This fallacy is idiotic, to assume that every Christian's misdeeds are done because their god thinks its ok. "in the name of religion" is really "in the will of usurpers," and rarely the will of any god as revealed to his worshippers. Do christians murder? Yes. But are they told not to by their god? YES. As for proving God, let me remind you that as a child you took some convincing that something could be invisible such as air, or untouchable such as an optical illusions. We don't know everything about reality yet, and our human senses are most likely insufficient to detect 99% of the stuff in the universe yet to discover. We accidentally discovered radiation, not because we could perceive it but because we could see its effects. To prove the existence of an interdimensional entity takes more technology than we currently have, but that does not rule out the possibility of existence. Neither can I YET scientifically prove God than can you scientifically disprove him. And disproof is the only qualification for something definitely having no chance in Hell of existing.
We're both shipwrecked on an island we'll probably die on. You have never seen or heard of a horse, and I claim they exist. You don't believe me and say they cannot exist because such a thing has never perceived. And, stranded, you'll never see one. But that's not to absolutely claim they do not exist.
Once again, you are free to disbelieve, it doesn't hurt me any. But I wish it known that it is possible. Maybe he's real, maybe he's not, but he's possible.

I believe I may have struck a note when I returned your request to disprove God with a request of my own to in return prove him. I do apologize for doing so, but in return I see you realize that in return you have struck a note with me.

Before I go further I must commend you for being one of the few religious people I've spoken to that didn't shun me or not allow me the freedom to walk away as a disbeliever, there are many that I have spoken with that instantly looked down upon me or tried to change my beliefs after I in turn have stated that I am in no way trying to shake the foundations of theirs.

Let me look at your post again.

1. I don't believe I said that it was the will of God that made those of the past and present do what they did, though they will, and have made others believed that it was Gods will, which falls back to my original post before yours about those in power with immoral values trying to pass them off as moral to their followers. Was it really Gods will? Most likely not, but Kings have made entire civilizations believed that it was and sent armies to their deaths over it.

That and I recall some civilizations sacrificing people to their Gods, something that is considered immoral today that back in that era and that society was a moral thing to do to please their God. When I spoke of religion, I meant all of them, not just Christianity. So I hope you're not taking my responses towards your specific religion, for that is not my intent.

2. The original post is indeed valid, there is no right or wrong. We stop these things from happening because in order to stick together as a society, they need to be outlawed. There are things that are deemed immoral in one society that are completely legal in another society, and as such are considered normal there. It all depends on what kind of society you're trying to build.

Killing is something that is considered immoral these days in a large portion of the world (if not all of it by now.) Because killing one another in your own society will keep that society from growing. However whenever a war breaks out, aren't those of which are from a different society other than your own instantly considered immoral? (Maybe not to you alone,) We are reprogrammed to think they are the bad guys and that it is okay for them to die, and moral for us to kill them, even though in reality we might be the ones doing bad.

3.The first half of this kind of falls under what I said in number 1. I wasn't trying to say that it was the will of God that made people do what they did, it was those in power using the will of God as an excuse to do things that they wouldn't normally get away with. It's happened a lot in the past, and continues to happen today. It truly is a shame.

I do like the rest of 3 though, it was kind of what I was looking for in an answer, and I'm glad that you gave it. To ask others to disprove God is just about as impossible for you to prove it, at least at this point in time. Hopefully as we advance, we will figure out what is true and what is false in this world.

I don't think I can thank you enough for responding maturely. It's not something that happens often when it comes to the topic of religion, though I do believe the OP wanted us to keep it strictly to human nature and not divine nature. Which from my understanding was him/her requesting that religious beliefs be left out of it, but then again, I think we discussed this very well in the aspect of keeping it to Human Nature, for religion is indeed part of it and plays a role in it.

Overall I try to be respectful to everyone, in the hopes they will do the same for me. I also happen to be obsessed with finding both philosophical and scientific answers to everything I can thnk of. I stumbled on Christianity as a philosophy that resounds with me, and have very little philosophically wrong with it compared to others I've tried, even atheism. This will obviously not hold true for everyone, because everyone has their own personal philosophy. I also try to find scientific evidence that my religion is possible, and of course I can never find everything but my search has found some interesting possibilities that raise questions. Once again, I may be finding coincidence that my faith convinces me isn't coincidence, but who knows? Anyhow, I respond to this kind of thing because I love philosophical debate and I dislike when possibilities that are perfectly plausible are discounted outright. In conclusion though, if there is a god and he actually has a hand in our daily lives and chooses to give us a moral code, then we are free to disobey but there is such a thing as wrong. If there is no god, tthere is no wrong, only the societally inconvenient. The only constant is whoever is in power at the moment, acting in the stead of a god. This works, especially if the person in charge is kind and just, such a society can hold together. But then there's situations where there must be an absolute standard based on that to keep tyrants in check. LOL now we're geting into civics.

 

[Nieroshai]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

And no, Hawking's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. "God doesn't exist because he's not necessary for the universe to function"? Lots of things exist that aren't necessary. Many of which we make ourselves. Who's to say that the laws of physics weren't written BY the one who made the universe? THEORETICAL physicists can't know anything about what they predict, only to make it as plausible as possible. Hawking's hypothesis is plausible, at least to non-supernaturalists, but not proven by any stretch. It's also plausible that there are intelligent, space-faring extraterrestrials do in fact exist, but we haven't proven a thing so far so the jury is, soundly, out. We cannot say that just because we don't KNOW whether something exists, that this anonymity is in fact PROOF that it does/doesn't exist.

What made you think there IS a god controlling Universe in the first place? I never saw him. Never heard of him. I can watch kittens die because of minor injury in a cold winter day. I can find an another dead cat with his intestines pulled out through a hole in his back (supposedly by some kids). Yet I'm still here. And I had to walk away. Things pretty much happen on their own.

As for the need to "find a creator". Why would you? A simple thing to understand, if you try for an eternity, you'll find a solution. The moment you found a solution it is no more an eternity. Thus we are here, but the eternity (or infinity) still exists but will never be reached. I think this is what Hawking tries to say, but I don't know much else, nor I have access to his books.

Why would one think there is a god? Only to explain one's imperfection; to coup with unexplainable things (that require no explanation anyway - a life wasted to think about them). This way one tries to fix insecurity by looking for a provider (a leader). But this is only a human and moral image. There is no correlation between this moral god of a religion and the way Universe works, as I explained how infinity works.

You mostly chalk this up to "need to believe." Believing in something is more philosophically sound than believing in nothing, but that's for another thread. As for death and destruction, you seem to claim that a god must either not allow these things or not exist. All of the Abrahamic religions(which I'm using as a basis because as a philosophy they're well-grounded) believe that because we fucked up and God decided we deserved to live with the consequences of thinking what he gave us wasn't good enough. Those included mortality, famine, etc. And how often do things really happen on their own? There is always a cause for everything in the physical world.
As for infinity, understand the fallacy: trying for an eternity is necessary to find an eternal god and the moment you find him, eternity ends. How does this make logical sense? If it's an intelligent god, he is detectable through his actions, which are supposedly recorded in religious texts. The possibility of revelation hints at him interacting with us, not us exploring the entire universe to find him. And you may believe that all religious accounts are false. Maybe they are. But you also rule out that if we do indeed have a spiritual soul, which through some quantum force can interact with matter, then we cannot PHYSICALLY find God because we have no instruments to detect this psionic energy. And quite possibly, that energy is everywhere and the presence of god is really part of the fabric of the universe itself. Did you even know there was air until someone proved it was there? Did you believe in radio waves? There are still forces and states of being we haven't discovered yet. While I have said much that is theory, it is to point out that it is indeed possible for these things to be so even if they turn out not to be true. There is a lot of research of psionic energy, and a lot of quantum theory almost requires there to be more to the universe than matter and energy in the traditional sense. You can easily say "I believe in [...]" but it is intellectually dishonest to say "despite no proof in my favor, my belief is the only one possible and yours is just a bedtime story."

 

[Nieroshai]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

To necessitate such a proof, we must first determine whether God makes morality or whether God enforces morality. If he enforces morality, then yes, what God says on the subject matters, but not because God says it. If God makes morality, then such morality is arbitrary and bereft of intrinsic value.

A god that makes up a morality has no faith in its own behavioral traits as a model and is imperfect. A god that wants humans to behave as he would, would have more of a right to enforce without being a hypocrite. I may be misreading, but I see either he makes or enforces as meaning you can make but not enforce or enforce but not make. Am I goofed here? Because the ideal is both. A god who enforces something without having made it makes no sense, and a god who makes but does not enforce is simply a world builder who makes and moves on, i.e. Deism, which is possible but will make discovering him that much harder. As to the point of free will, however, enforcement takes the form of either reward or consequences, most of which simply karmic, at least as well as I can guess. A god that enforces is either a tyrant or a caring parent, depending on the intent and method of enforcement. Note I'm only trying to argue for the existence of a supernatural being here, not a denomination.

You understand most of what I mean. I should explain that the God who ""made" morality would also enforce it.

But the God who only enforces is the ideal (assuming that god is benevolent) because that means that morality is, to use a very indefinite adjective, Good, and not just something said god felt like telling us to do.

If that which is moral is moral because god likes it, then it's not morality; it's what god likes. As such, orders like the 10 commandments have no positive or negative moral value insofar as they were created by a god.

Put another way, if there is a god(s) then god(s) is concrete. Morality is abstract, and as such, cannot be created; it just is. Therefor, a god(s) cannot create morality.

EDIT: I believe that the poster above me would enjoy Tim Minchin's "Storm"

When I said made, I meant "made in accordance to his own nature", not "made because he felt like it". Maybe the definition of morality is what we're missing here. Maybe morality means in this religious sense "that which pleases God and is in accordance with his nature"

 

[gl1koz3]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

And no, Hawking's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. "God doesn't exist because he's not necessary for the universe to function"? Lots of things exist that aren't necessary. Many of which we make ourselves. Who's to say that the laws of physics weren't written BY the one who made the universe? THEORETICAL physicists can't know anything about what they predict, only to make it as plausible as possible. Hawking's hypothesis is plausible, at least to non-supernaturalists, but not proven by any stretch. It's also plausible that there are intelligent, space-faring extraterrestrials do in fact exist, but we haven't proven a thing so far so the jury is, soundly, out. We cannot say that just because we don't KNOW whether something exists, that this anonymity is in fact PROOF that it does/doesn't exist.

What made you think there IS a god controlling Universe in the first place? I never saw him. Never heard of him. I can watch kittens die because of minor injury in a cold winter day. I can find an another dead cat with his intestines pulled out through a hole in his back (supposedly by some kids). Yet I'm still here. And I had to walk away. Things pretty much happen on their own.

As for the need to "find a creator". Why would you? A simple thing to understand, if you try for an eternity, you'll find a solution. The moment you found a solution it is no more an eternity. Thus we are here, but the eternity (or infinity) still exists but will never be reached. I think this is what Hawking tries to say, but I don't know much else, nor I have access to his books.

Why would one think there is a god? Only to explain one's imperfection; to coup with unexplainable things (that require no explanation anyway - a life wasted to think about them). This way one tries to fix insecurity by looking for a provider (a leader). But this is only a human and moral image. There is no correlation between this moral god of a religion and the way Universe works, as I explained how infinity works.

You mostly chalk this up to "need to believe." Believing in something is more philosophically sound than believing in nothing, but that's for another thread. As for death and destruction, you seem to claim that a god must either not allow these things or not exist. All of the Abrahamic religions(which I'm using as a basis because as a philosophy they're well-grounded) believe that because we fucked up and God decided we deserved to live with the consequences of thinking what he gave us wasn't good enough. Those included mortality, famine, etc. And how often do things really happen on their own? There is always a cause for everything in the physical world.
As for infinity, understand the fallacy: trying for an eternity is necessary to find an eternal god and the moment you find him, eternity ends. How does this make logical sense? If it's an intelligent god, he is detectable through his actions, which are supposedly recorded in religious texts. The possibility of revelation hints at him interacting with us, not us exploring the entire universe to find him. And you may believe that all religious accounts are false. Maybe they are. But you also rule out that if we do indeed have a spiritual soul, which through some quantum force can interact with matter, then we cannot PHYSICALLY find God because we have no instruments to detect this psionic energy. And quite possibly, that energy is everywhere and the presence of god is really part of the fabric of the universe itself. Did you even know there was air until someone proved it was there? Did you believe in radio waves? There are still forces and states of being we haven't discovered yet. While I have said much that is theory, it is to point out that it is indeed possible for these things to be so even if they turn out not to be true. There is a lot of research of psionic energy, and a lot of quantum theory almost requires there to be more to the universe than matter and energy in the traditional sense. You can easily say "I believe in [...]" but it is intellectually dishonest to say "despite no proof in my favor, my belief is the only one possible and yours is just a bedtime story."

What I meant is that it's absurd to talk about presence of a god. It is not necessary.

"Believing in something is more philosophically sound than believing in nothing, but that's for another thread."
I certainly don't feel like believing in something. Why would one, when there is such insane amount of overall balance? The image is unnecessary. Everything is evened-out. And, if not, it's just because something else had to even itself out.

"As for death and destruction, you seem to claim that a god must either not allow these things or not exist."
That part was meant to provoke. And to demonstrate balance. One calm evening here on forums; one tortured entity somewhere else.

"despite no proof in my favor, my belief is the only one possible and yours is just a bedtime story."
Again, I'm saying people should stop looking up to the image. It doesn't exist. And I've got no beliefs in this respect. And I won't be wasting time looking for one. But it's a story no matter how you twist it.

 

[randomsix]

I'll believe this IF, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, you can disprove God for me.
If there is no god, then you are right. What you said would be true, and sex would be just sex whether there is consent or not, murder would be just the way things work, etc. However, if there IS a god, then he probably wants to be master of all he surveys, and his laws are what becomes morality. Note: I could be referring to Cthulhu for all I care, or even Brahman.

To necessitate such a proof, we must first determine whether God makes morality or whether God enforces morality. If he enforces morality, then yes, what God says on the subject matters, but not because God says it. If God makes morality, then such morality is arbitrary and bereft of intrinsic value.

A god that makes up a morality has no faith in its own behavioral traits as a model and is imperfect. A god that wants humans to behave as he would, would have more of a right to enforce without being a hypocrite. I may be misreading, but I see either he makes or enforces as meaning you can make but not enforce or enforce but not make. Am I goofed here? Because the ideal is both. A god who enforces something without having made it makes no sense, and a god who makes but does not enforce is simply a world builder who makes and moves on, i.e. Deism, which is possible but will make discovering him that much harder. As to the point of free will, however, enforcement takes the form of either reward or consequences, most of which simply karmic, at least as well as I can guess. A god that enforces is either a tyrant or a caring parent, depending on the intent and method of enforcement. Note I'm only trying to argue for the existence of a supernatural being here, not a denomination.

You understand most of what I mean. I should explain that the God who ""made" morality would also enforce it.

But the God who only enforces is the ideal (assuming that god is benevolent) because that means that morality is, to use a very indefinite adjective, Good, and not just something said god felt like telling us to do.

If that which is moral is moral because god likes it, then it's not morality; it's what god likes. As such, orders like the 10 commandments have no positive or negative moral value insofar as they were created by a god.

Put another way, if there is a god(s) then god(s) is concrete. Morality is abstract, and as such, cannot be created; it just is. Therefor, a god(s) cannot create morality.

EDIT: I believe that the poster above me would enjoy Tim Minchin's "Storm"

When I said made, I meant "made in accordance to his own nature", not "made because he felt like it". Maybe the definition of morality is what we're missing here. Maybe morality means in this religious sense "that which pleases God and is in accordance with his nature"

I would argue that to avoid any equivocation, we choose another word to denote "that which pleases God and is in accordance with his nature" because morality means something else.

As to the main part of your response, even if you meant "made" in that sense, it does not change the fact that such edicts have no intrinsic value. For example, if the making god's nature is malevolent, and he tells us morality is to lie, cheat, and steal, does that really mean that such actions suddenly become moral? This is a contradiction, so morality cannot come from an organism's nature.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Ah I do enjoy talking about philosophy and SCIENCE.