patrick.net

Peter P says

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

By that definition, there is no reason to believe:
1. that god is a sentient being. The non-sentient universe would meet the definition of god.
2. that god is omniscient or in fact knows anything.
3. that god is omnipotent.
4. that god is good or moral or even has any concept of right or wrong.
5. that god is not pure fucking evil.
6. that god is even aware of the existence of human beings.
7. that god would care about human beings if he were aware of their existence.
8. that god would want human beings to behave a certain way.
9. that god has every communicated with a human being via burning bush, telepathy, or any other way.
10. that one should listen to god.
11. that god's opinions on matters, if it has any, is worth more than Honey Boo Boo's.
12. that the god of Abraham is in any way the god of your definition.
13. that Jesus is/was god and/or the son of god.
14. that praying to god in anyway communicates with it.
15. that there is only one god. After all, if one entity can be self-caused, then why can't an infinite number of entities be self-caused?
16. that there is even one god. Perhaps the set of gods by your definition is empty.

In any case, the god you described does not have nearly as many properties as the god worshiped by the Judea-Christian-Islamic world. Their god is a highly interventionist god.

And I think everyone should follow his own moral code.

Dan, you are quite right. But one can choose to believe in his own version of God.

Religion/God do not provide humans with morals, least of all the ones operating the religion.
Humans are born with "morals"- it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up.
Any organization becomes just like the humans that run them - their prime directive is self preservation. This corrupts all organizations.
If God is the head of a religion then he is corrupt.

FortWayne says

God, or religion, is the social contract, the moral code of ethics.

Such a god is a philosophy, not a sentient benevolent being. It makes no sense to worship or pray to such a god.

Philosophy can be great, but it is not something to be worshiped.

The god you described is clearly not the god worshiped by the Judea-Christian-Islamic world. Why would you even use the word "god" to describe such an entity. The word "philosophy" is so much better.

FortWayne says

Because by nature we humans are not ethical beings.

For millennia, philosophers have debated whether man is basically good and society corrupts him or man is basically even and society and law must force him to be good. Both sides of this argument are wrong.

It is the nature of man to be nice when he expects the behavior to be reciprocated, and it is the nature of man to be mean when he expects that the behavior cannot or will not be reciprocated. This is also true for all other species and is an emergent behavior of the process of evolution.

For example, people behave very selfishly while driving because they do not expect to encounter the driver they cut off again and if they do, they expect neither one to know that they have encountered each other before. Therefore, people are mean while driving. The exact same people will behave nicely to each other when crossing paths while walking on the sidewalk or in a store because in such person-to-person contact, behavior is reciprocated.

Another example, you are much more likely to get fucked over by someone with whom you are engaging in a one-time business transaction like a car dealer or a realtor then you are to be fucked over by someone with whom you engage in repetitive business like your local grocery store or a restaurant. The possibility of repeat business provides a great incentive for a business to treat its customers fairly. The unlikeliness of repeat business, as in the case of buying a house, gives great incentive for a business to try to take maximum advantage of you. Again, expected reciprocation means niceness and expected lack of reciprocation means meanness.

Yet more examples can be seen in the difference between short-term mating strategies and long-term mating strategies in humans and other species.

Put simply, both good and evil behaviors are hardwired in our genetic code. As such, we do not need faith in some god or religious code to do noble things. In fact, reasoning and understanding are far better ways to promote acting on the nobler aspects of our being and structuring society to encourage these nobler aspects while discouraging the more base aspects. Reasoning and understanding exactly how good and evil are hardwired in our evolutionary history is the key to structuring our society to maximize good and minimize evil.

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards
DL

FortWayne says

God, or religion, is the social contract, the moral code of ethics. Because by nature we humans are not ethical beings.

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HBW5vdhr_PA

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z-eU5xZW7cU

I have found no one who has refuted this as yet. I look forward to your attempt.

What we term morals and ethics are something we developed for peaceful co-existence between those of our species.

It is said that God was alone for a long time before creating and being alone, he would have no need or want to develop such as morals and ethics.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

Humans are not fully capable of making ethical decisions precisely becaused we are not self-caused.

There is always the non-free environmental context.

Please see the links above and comment.

Regards
DL

Moderate Infidel says

Religion/God do not provide humans with morals, least of all the ones operating the religion.

Humans are born with "morals"- it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up.

Any organization becomes just like the humans that run them - their prime directive is self preservation. This corrupts all organizations.

If God is the head of a religion then he is corrupt.

No argument on your first and last but I do not agree with your "it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up."

I think it is our selfish gene that just kicks in when we cannot just cooperate to survive and must compete. I think we must all compete and thus all create evil from the losers POV to these competitions.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Strangely, some religions seem to agree with me.

Theistic evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards

DL

Ever heard of infinite regression?

Greatest I am says

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

Our culture is a form of moral relativism. It is not surprising that we consider things most people do, innately or not, as "moral."

Besides, we cannot fully take moral responsibility if we do not set the initial conditions.

We not not totally "free" to make moral decisions because we react to "decisions" made by others.

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

Who's definition? Science does not agree.

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

It has, I agree, but that is no reason to believe everything religion says. If it's not proven by science, it should not be believed.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Science is a methodology. And as a methodology, no one has yet to find a fault with the scientific method. It is a self-correcting mechanism and has done more to advance understanding and reveal truth than any other human endeavor including and especially religion.

Science has cured diseases, gotten us to the moon, explained the cosmos and life itself, practically eliminated stillborn and childbirth deaths, increased food production a thousand fold, and improved the quality and length of life. We all have much to be grateful to science for.

The difference between the priest and the scientist can be summed up like this. The scientist learns from his mistakes and corrects them. The priest kills anyone who points out his mistakes and then turns his mistakes into dogma.

Thank You science......

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=wo_t5#/video/world/2013/01/04/pkg-chance-uk-safer-world.cnn

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

Insistence of using science as the only source of truth is a dogma not dissimilar to any religion. Scientism is a religion.

Dan8267 says

And as a methodology, no one has yet to find a fault with the scientific method. It is a self-correcting mechanism and has done more to advance understanding and reveal truth than any other human endeavor including and especially religion.

Science is as political as religion. It is self-correcting only if its participants are willing.

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Raw says

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Partly science. Partly speculation. The most important knowledge is the limitations of your knowledge.

Peter P says

Raw says

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Partly science. Partly speculation. The most important knowledge is the limitations of your knowledge.

Science is more reliable than speculation. Speculation in this context would be sheer guess work.
When your child is seriously sick you are not gonna rely on speculation, but a good doctor who knows exactly what to do.
We all rely on science, because we can count on science even though it is not always right.

That's the thing. Competitive edges rarely come from generally accepted knowledge. They come from successful speculation.

Almost all successful people have been great artists of some sort.

Peter P says

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

E = mc^2

Science has never proved anything, my ass.

Peter P says

Science is as political as religion. It is self-correcting only if its participants are willing.

Science is the exact opposite of politics. It knows no cultural, geographic, racial, or class boundaries. Claiming that it does is just plain wrong.

As for any person who refuses to accept empirical evidence that a theory is incorrect or incomplete is not taken seriously in the scientific community. Theories cannot contradict observations, and experiments must be repeatable to be accepted. Let's apply that to religion. Unless Jesus can walk on water again in front of us, we're not going to accept that he did it.

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

Your knowledge of history is as abysmal as your knowledge of science. History is full of scientific revolutions that completely shock the scientific community, but are quickly accepted because of the evidence. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, but today we don't believe there is even a center at all. People used to think the universe was static and eternal, whereas we measured it's age as 13.75 billion years. People used to think that gravity was slowing the expansion of the universe. Much to everyone's surprise, in 1998 we discovered through evidence and observation that the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Dan8267 says

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

I probably misspoke. But my statement was actually a tautology. All system of knowledge can only create knowledge that fits inside their systems.

So it was clearly and demonstrably correct. Just meaningless. :-)

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

JodyChunder says

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

Jody, I forgive you.

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

As applied to genetics?

Moderate Infidel says

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

very true

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Peter P says

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Yes!

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

Bap33 says

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

You can have mine.