What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Elok]

Er, Gospel of John, not epistles of John, UR. That would be 1, 2, or 3 John 1:1. And the KJV version is the "monotheistic" version of that text, along with the NIV, RSV, and everything else except the JW mistranslation.

[Whaleboy]

Sorry I haven't replied, again in so long. Work's been hectic and I've been recovering from my 21st birthday on Wednesday (you bastards, no thread to mark the occasion ) but that's ok, you've also been lazy with this thread so less work for me now!

I don't see why things would necessarily be different for other people, I am surely not the only one to have walked this particular path.

True, I suppose it's quite an interesting thing to observe; the difference in character of belief between those who were raised with a religion and those who converted for various reasons. Of course, you have this sort of wishy-washy traditional anglicanism in the UK, which contrasts with firebrand Islam.

Mental masturbation

I tend to agree with you here though I disagree with the consistency part. A moral code deviod of consistency is simply doing what you like. Introduce consistency you have a code. Also when dealing with morality at the collective level (eg state) its nice to have consistency.

Perhaps to a point. It's very difficult because "consistency" could mean different things to different people, and different things to a person at different times. Only reason I say is that I've known people, as I'm sure we all have, who act in frankly deplorable ways due to their own experiences and outwardly they are hypocritical, selfish and amoral. Inside, and it's very difficult to articulate, but there is consistency at work... consistency with their own experiences, emotions, thoughts, fears etc etc. If you understand that person enough, it all becomes consistent. It seems reasonable that if you understand yourself enough, your own emotivist morality becomes consistent too. Also I rather like the idea that "morality" is an exercise in getting to know yourself better.

Couldn't that same logic hold to the universe itself without God?

No. "God" as the concept of creator begs the question. The universe, as not implying creation in itself, does not necessitate a premise of its own creation. THat might seem like an odd thing to say, but logically it is satisfactory to apply Occam's razor to the existence of the universe and give it the benefit of the doubt on the grounds that it does exist.

God, because the concept a) begs the question and b) cannot be proven in the same way we can scientifically prove the universe, is cut out by Occams razor as one of potentially infinite causes of the universe. As for the best answer there, I'll leave that to cosmologists .

Okay, so what's supporting the assertion that altruism is self-interested?

A simple logical process; what predicates an action, and what motivates it? Ask yourself the question "why did I do..." and pick some action you took today, and ask yourself the question "Why?" to every answer you're given. You will end up resulting with a quite disturbing answer.

If it's an evolutionarily developed instinct, it would naturally propagate by its usefulness to the whole species, but that still leaves us asking, as individuals, why we should bother. Xenophobia may very well be a survival instinct useful to the species, but it's generally condemned. So, what's our motivation for listening to the instinct of cooperation/altruism/egoism?

Well that's a very interesting question and one that's quite easy to get bogged down in when in a debate such as this. It's something you're going to have a problem with if you don't differentiate between a humans conscious decisions and intent, and our biological nature. Which one predicates the other though? .

In answer to your question, altruism and "the selfish gene" does not constitute reason for a moral system. That requires further consideration.... it means that morality is something contextual, i.e., limited to human consciousness and society, not absolute to the human condition.

[Elok]

Er, I guess I should interpret that as, "let's not argue that now." Fair enough. I'd just like to note that your new sig is awesome.

[Flip McWho]

So, what's our motivation for listening to the instinct of cooperation/altruism/egoism?

Well if the the desire is there you could argue it was a social construct. Morality does not really enter any equation untill other people also enter the equation.

Possibly its also a derivative of our collective dislikes and likes. We (as a society) have grown to realise that equality is the bees knees and as such racism is frowned upon. We used to like racism and nobody cared, now we do.

The whole issue with morality is that it begs the question as to what is moral and what isn't.
Half the stuff in the good books throughout the world I wouldn't class as either moral or immoral yet the people who believe would quite happily disagree with me. That doesn't make me less of a moral person, just not moral in accordance with a certain moral code.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, Gospel of John, not epistles of John, UR. That would be 1, 2, or 3 John 1:1. And the KJV version is the "monotheistic" version of that text, along with the NIV, RSV, and everything else except the JW mistranslation.

Okay, this seems to be the verse, then:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So what's the accusation against the KJV again?

[Elok]

Er, what you quoted is the KJV version (which is correct IMO)...right? My beef is with the "New World Translations" of the JWs, which inserts the article "a" before "God." At least, so I hear. I don't actually have my own copy of the heretical translations, so I am going on hearsay.

[Flip McWho]

The New World translation one that I have says:

1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

[Flip McWho]

Also you really have to define what you're talking about when you refer to a moral system. Trying to use a morality system as a proof for God suggests that there is one universal moral system, and even assuming there is one universal moral code it is still a) dependant on whether God exists to be 'truth' and b) which God is the right one. This even assumes that there is a God behind the code to start with let alone how to figure out which is the correct one. A heap of assuming that doesn't really prove whether a god exists or not.

The only reason a religious moral code is so great at being one is because its all the will of the central figure (God/Christ in the case of christians). Everything is consistent when held to ones will.

[Elok]

Well, one reason this argument was abandoned was that I wasn't expressing what I meant too clearly. I'm not trying the classical "argument from morality" that UR mentioned, at least not as I understand it.

I'm basing my statements on the assumption (in my experience true) that human beings have certain innate sympathies which do not chime with our plain evolutionary best interests. We do not always obey these sympathies, but they are almost always there. Pity, compassion, charity, self-sacrifice--these are all the sort of thing which, I imagine, we tend to find admirable. The exceptions being Nietzsche (apparently; I've only started "The Will to Power" and he's very obtuse) and Ayn Rand (who gets no respect in philosophical circles, I think because she was some sort of mad snob looking to justify her own selfishness with convoluted gibberish).

Now, if we're to take these ideas as meritorious for their own sake, and not merely an expedient form of behavior under some circumstances (which, I think, is the only conclusion you can come to if you try to make them extensions of egotism or evolution), we're stuck with why we're doing them. If we're just being compassionate for the sake of appeasing our consciences, there's no apparent reason to think ourselves any different from a lunatic with a compulsion. It's just a very common compulsion.

I think I'm not "arguing for God from morality," because I recognize that there's no reason why it logically follows as a matter of course that there must be a supernatural end to our moral urges. If there's a natural end to them, it's eluded us for a long, long time. I don't buy the "socially conditioned" bit either, but that's a subject for another thread, or at least another post.

Anyway, you can still argue that the conscience is just another irrelevant, screwy thing we've got going despite its uselessness, like the appendix, or the tonsils, or the coccyx. That's the other "out" I can see. The only reason I reject that conclusion is pure revulsion. I don't like to think that compassion is a dud, an obsolete monkey on our back. That's not rational, but then the urge itself is crazy, so hey...why not?

More seriously, I suppose I value decency even more than I value reason. I would rather be mad than evil, and the only other option would be plain self-deception, which revolts me even more. So I can only guess there's some point to acting morally, something we reach for when we show mercy.

Beyond that, you get into comparative religion. While I think it's important to try to understand whatever Deity is out there as best we can, it's also my experience that the deeper into theology one goes in any given religion, the more similar the advice it gives tends to be to that given by the others. Well, for most of the religions I've encountered. Buddhism, Hinduism, the deeper traditions in Islam and Judaism (I'm told), Taoism, and the ancient form of Christianity before nutjobs like Falwell and Robertson got to it. I actually find that strengthening rather than weakening my faith; if people acting in isolation come to nearly identical conclusions, it suggests something meaningful in their endeavor to me. Anyway, if some of us are calling God by the wrong name, we can worry about that later. At least we're trying.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, what you quoted is the KJV version (which is correct IMO)...right? My beef is with the "New World Translations" of the JWs, which inserts the article "a" before "God." At least, so I hear. I don't actually have my own copy of the heretical translations, so I am going on hearsay.

I don't think it's you. Ben or somebody else objected to use the KJV translation, quoting some silly reason.

[Flip McWho]

UR -

It's not the KJV translation that Elok has the problem with, it's the New World Translation that the JW's use in their bible. One of the differences being in the quote I provided earlier with the addition of 'a'. Which is not a silly reason really at all. The addition of 'a' does make it appear that there is another god and that is the word. It can at least pave the way for a dualistic God.

Elok -

I generally agree with most of what you said besides

Anyway, you can still argue that the conscience is just another irrelevant, screwy thing we've got going despite its uselessness, like the appendix, or the tonsils, or the coccyx. That's the other "out" I can see. The only reason I reject that conclusion is pure revulsion. I don't like to think that compassion is a dud, an obsolete monkey on our back. That's not rational, but then the urge itself is crazy, so hey...why not?

I don't believe that just because it doesn't have some supernatural origin point makes it an obsolete monkey on our back. A certain form of need to act morally appears central to our happiness but where this is derived from is very subject dependant I suppose.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think it's you. Ben or somebody else objected to use the KJV translation, quoting some silly reason

Not me. I have no problem with the KJV, and technically being Catholic and all, I'm not supposed to be quoting the NIV.