Your Beliefs

[Ace-Ace]

Hey,

I don't mean for this to be a controversial topic, or a bashing of each others' beliefs. I'm just curious to see what relgion (or lack there of) everyone follows, being in the adult industry and all.

I, myself, am completely agnostic...don't really believe in anything (lazy / easy way out) :D

Kevin

[Midnyte]

I still haven't decided yet.....

[Ace-Ace]

Originally posted by Midnyte
I still haven't decided yet.....

I believe that classifies you as agnostic then.

[Sly_RJ]

I hate sheep.

[SetTheWorldonFire]

Wu-Tang

[cherrylula]

I pray to google every night.

[Ace-Ace]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
I hate sheep.

I believe that classifies you as animalism, also known as satanism :-D

[Ace-Ace]

Originally posted by cherrylula
I pray to google every night.

Haha...that's a given though.

[Midnyte]

Originally posted by Ace-Ace
I believe that classifies you as agnostic then.

Nah, cause an agnostic believes that there might be a god, but there is no way of knowing for sure. I am sure there is a god or gods, I'm just not sure what the nature of them is.

[playa]

reminds me of a funny joke



An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing.

He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!...."
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The river ran again.
And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped his right paw ..... brought both paws together...bowed his head and spoke:

"Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."

everybody believes in god the right before they die

[Midnyte]

Hehehe

[Swiftone]

I worship my penis.

[Ace-Ace]

Originally posted by playa
reminds me of a funny joke



An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that the evolution had created. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!", he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing.

He ran even faster, so scared that tears were coming to his eyes. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out "Oh my God!...."
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don't exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The river ran again.
And the sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped his right paw ..... brought both paws together...bowed his head and spoke:

"Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful."

everybody believes in god the right before they die

Haha, good one.

[Firehorse]

I believe in many universal principles. I think that many religions are like labels. It is sort of like as an analogy every different religion is a different flavour of milk and some ppl like banana, some chocolate, some strawberry, some hate milk - but it is all milk. I believe there is one creator and thousands of versions of that omnipotent creator. Many religions and beliefs echo the same themes. I am most closely aligned with buddhist and native beliefs. 'With our thoughts we make the world.' - Buddha
or 'Thae white man goes into his church house & talks about Jesus, the Native American goes into his teepee & talks to Jesus.'

[Turf]

i only believe in myself... no god no nothing... darwin was right evolution is the key..

[.:Frog:.]

I believe there could be a god but a different god then the religion(s) mention.

[G Sharp]

lol. Good one!

Originally posted by playa
reminds me of a funny joke


everybody believes in god the right before they die

[G Sharp]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but Buddhist teaching is structured in such a way that one can follow the techniques of the Buddha whether one is an atheist or a believer. Suffering does not arise from any particular mythic tradition but arises from everyday living regardless of religion or religious tradition. Care to share your perspective on this?

Originally posted by Firehorse
I believe in many universal principles. I think that many religions are like labels. It is sort of like as an analogy every different religion is a different flavour of milk and some ppl like banana, some chocolate, some strawberry, some hate milk - but it is all milk. I believe there is one creator and thousands of versions of that omnipotent creator. Many religions and beliefs echo the same themes. I am most closely aligned with buddhist and native beliefs. 'With our thoughts we make the world.' - Buddha
or 'Thae white man goes into his church house & talks about Jesus, the Native American goes into his teepee & talks to Jesus.'

[[Labret]]

Buddhism is horse shit.

Its a fad religion. Few people can understand it well, let alone a fucking idiot American.

Free Tibet? Fuck Tibet.

[G Sharp]

hmmmm ooookay.

Originally posted by [Labret]
Buddhism is horse shit.

[.:Frog:.]

Originally posted by [Labret]

Free Tibet? Fuck Tibet.

Do you like sloppy leftovers?
China has been fucking Tibet for years, are you waiting till it's your turn?

[eru]

"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. "
-- Galen Strawson

[playa]

how do you know whats right or whats wrong?
what is considered good or bad?
and you finally got laid last night,,

this proves there is a god

[G Sharp]

Interesting point, Labret but arguably "Buddhism" is not a religion. At least, not in the traditional sense--it just has too many permutations to be labelled as a formalistic religion. It is a "religion" in some cultures, a differing way of thinking in others. Plus, there's so many different paths of "Buddhism" that people can approach it regardless of whether they are, as you say, "idiot Americans."


Btw, Nice try on the troll on Tibet.

Originally posted by [Labret]
Buddhism is horse shit.

Its a fad religion. Few people can understand it well, let alone a fucking idiot American.

Free Tibet? Fuck Tibet.

[G Sharp]

Great quote!

Originally posted by eru
"It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. "
-- Galen Strawson

[G Sharp]

This thread reminds me of an interesting quote from the Tao Te Ching:

Get rid of religion and priests, and morality will return to the land.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by G Sharp


Btw, Nice try on the troll on Tibet.

Wasnt a troll.

You know the "Free Tibet" bumpers tickers that are so popular for hippies, vegans, lesbians, animal right activist, and other assorted lefty fruits? You cannot be a good lefty unless you have a rainbow sticker on your car and a Free Tibet bumper sticker.

In college I produced a bumper stick that looked exactly the same, except it said "Fuck Tibet".

Its all a fad. Fuck the Beasty Boys, fuck Richard Gere, and fuck rice milk.

[G Sharp]

Labret,

I agree with you on the limited point that "group think" is bullshit. Your examples of "lefty" trendy token activism, if done with no other motivation and depth as to be perceived as "cool" or to gain a sense of "belonging" are in line with this bankrupt "group think."

But I hope you haven't foreclosed the possiblity, in your mind, that some people SINCERELY believe these things and act not out of any attempt to be noticed but out of actual concern and compassion. I know this percentage is small but it does exist. Labeling whole movements as disingenuous does these sincere people a great disservice.

I went to school at Berkeley and spent some time at Michigan [Ann Arbor] and can sympathize with your distate for the bullshit displays of solidarity. But I have met and talked with people in the forefront of their struggles and was awed by the depth of their conviction [most of which I did not share] and their sincerity.

Originally posted by [Labret]


Wasnt a troll.

You know the "Free Tibet" bumpers tickers that are so popular for hippies, vegans, lesbians, animal right activist, and other assorted lefty fruits? You cannot be a good lefty unless you have a rainbow sticker on your car and a Free Tibet bumper sticker.

In college I produced a bumper stick that looked exactly the same, except it said "Fuck Tibet".

Its all a fad. Fuck the Beasty Boys, fuck Richard Gere, and fuck rice milk.

[Wizzo]

Taoist here, basically because we don't know and it's the only thing I have found that you don't have to pretend to know...

[jreaka]

I pray to the football gods every sunday!

[Scootermuze]

As for me.....

I'm just an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac that stays awake at night wondering if there's a dog...

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by G Sharp


But I hope you haven't foreclosed the possiblity, in your mind, that some people SINCERELY believe these things and act not out of any attempt to be noticed but out of actual concern and compassion.

Of course not. I know they exist.

Every religion / belief system has its core thinkers that usually operate at such a level that they would be ineffective as clergy or teachers of the laypeople who adhere.

Its the followers that fuck up religion. People just dont get it.

I hate nothing more than a closeminded right wing shitfuck hiding behind the banner of Christianity. But I have nothing but the utmost respect for Eastern Orthodoxy and contemporary christian mystics. But to most people it is black or white. Either you like christianity, or you despise it. I am afraid its not that simple.

And that goes for any religion or belief system that could be construed as a "religion".

People are largely ignorant and should not be allowed to contemplate such matters as God. All they do is fuck it up.

If any of that made no sense, my bad. I just got back from a root canal and I havent slept in over 24 hours. I have never had a root canal before and I must say I was pleasantly surpised. I fucking hate the dentist more than a Canadian Dead Head, and I was fretting like hell. But it didnt end up hurting that bad. Fuck, they get in your tooth and the take little files and rip out the nerves and the pulp in the canal and then pack the empty space with rubber. Fuck, it sucked.

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by [labret]

Buddhism is horse shit. Its a fad religion. Few people can understand it well, let alone a fucking idiot American.

But of course, you understand the intricacies of every school of Buddhism so well that you know they're all horse shit, right?

In that case, maybe you could shed some light on the Hridaya Sutra's apparent contradiction with traditional Hinayana and Mahayana understanding of the 12 link chain of codependent arising and the four noble truths.

I thank you in advance for clearing this little problem up. Its been a matter of debate amongst buddhist scholars for quite some time.

For the record, I'm a Cha'an Buddhist. A mixture of Southern School Chinese buddhism and taoism.

[Babaganoosh]

This is just my opinion...

I don't know if there's a God and I don't really care. If he/it IS real, he's a sick fuck. Look at all the horrible things that happen in the world. Would a good God allow that to happen? If he IS almighty and he doesn't stop bad things from happening (murder, rape, retardation, Barry Manilow, etc) then I sure as hell won't worship him.

That's beside the point though. Religion is for the weak. I think religion is the attempt to personify the unknown. It also acts as ones moral chaperone. I don't need faith in God and the promise of heaven to make me a good person. I can be a quality human being on my own.

[drops]

Man.. religon is a bunch of bullshit..

our country got hit because of some kind of holy war?

fuck that...

not to go on a rant, but GOD or whatever the fuck that is.. did not put us here...

these religous dumbfucks need to get there head out of a book that was not written by GOD.. and open a text book and read how this earth, universe, and beyond was created.. If you think that we (humans) are from GOD and we die and go to heaven.. nigga pleeeaazzzzzeee! you think that this tiny rock rotating around some what of a small star is the only place that can hold life... think about this.. there are more stars (like our sun) in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on the planet...

do think we are the only ones.. religon is a evil tool put into power by people to control them.. extort money from them, strike fear into them...

I love this industry.. No freaking morals to worry about.. just dont fuck each other..

fuck you... my

God Bless You

[Babaganoosh]

Originally posted by drops
Man.. religon is a bunch of bullshit..

our country got hit because of some kind of holy war?

fuck that...

not to go on a rant, but GOD or whatever the fuck that is.. did not put us here...

these religous dumbfucks need to get there head out of a book that was not written by GOD.. and open a text book and read how this earth, universe, and beyond was created.. If you think that we (humans) are from GOD and we die and go to heaven.. nigga pleeeaazzzzzeee! you think that this tiny rock rotating around some what of a small star is the only place that can hold life... think about this.. there are more stars (like our sun) in the universe than there are grains of sand on every beach on the planet...

do think we are the only ones.. religon is a evil tool put into power by people to control them.. extort money from them, strike fear into them...

I love this industry.. No freaking morals to worry about.. just dont fuck each other..

fuck you... my

God Bless You

Amen brother, that's some good preachin'!

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Gutterboy


In that case, maybe you could shed some light on the Hridaya Sutra's apparent contradiction with traditional Hinayana and Mahayana understanding of the 12 link chain of codependent arising and the four noble truths.

I thank you in advance for clearing this little problem up. Its been a matter of debate amongst buddhist scholars for quite some time.

um.... a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina.........

[SykkBoy]

for the record, I pray to Bruce Campbell...

and my version of the Pledge Of Allegiance is:
I pledge allegiance to the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
one nation, under Bruce Campbell
with liberty, justice and chainsaws for all......



Bruce Campbell bless America!

[mijoon]

Originally posted by SykkBoy2


um.... a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina.........

I thought that was it, but I wasn't really sure.

[Enchantress]

Originally posted by SykkBoy2
for the record, I pray to Bruce Campbell...

and my version of the Pledge Of Allegiance is:
I pledge allegiance to the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
one nation, under Bruce Campbell
with liberty, justice and chainsaws for all......



Bruce Campbell bless America!

I met Bruce Campbell at a kid's fair once, back when he had that T.V. show (Briscoe County Jr.) He was really cool. God might live in his eyebrows.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Enchantress
He was really cool. God might live in his eyebrows.

you dare mock the almighty Bruce Campbell? there's quite the warm spotting awaiting you in hell, that's for sure....... ;))))))

I've met Bruce Campbell a few times...in the early 90's I used to hit all of the Fangoria Weekend Of Horror conventions and he was always a constant panelist/speaker...he and Sam Raimi autographed my Darkman t-shirt and a couple issues of Fangoria Magazine...they were always very approachable, but now with Mr. Raimi going Hollywood in a big way, he'll probably be a constant no-show at the convetnions now........

[cherrylula]

Bruce Campbell is doing a book signing on August 19th in Burbank (CA).

"If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor"

[ADIDAS]

I worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci!

[jimmyf]

Buddhist, thats what I tell those people that come to my front door, spamming me about there church... It works.

I don't believe in a fucking thing but me.

[Pathfinder]

Topics: God, Arguments for the Existence of



Text: The arguments for the existence of God constitute one of the finest attempts of the human mind to break out of the world and go beyond the sensible or phenomenal realm of experience.



Certainly the question of God's existence is the most important question of human philosophy. It affects the whole tenor of human life, whether man is regarded as the supreme being in the universe or whether it is believed that man has a superior being that he must love and obey, or perhaps defy.



There are three ways one can argue for the existence of God. First, the a priori approach argues from a conception of God as a being so perfect that his nonexistence is inconceivable. Second, the a posteriori approach gives evidence from the world, from the observable, empirical universe, insisting that God is necessary to explain certain features of the cosmos. Third, the existential approach asserts direct experience of God by way of personal revelation. This approach is not really an argument in the usual sense, because one does not usually argue for something that can be directly experienced.



The A Priori Approach. This approach is the heart of the famous ontological argument, devised by Anselm of Canterbury though adumbrated earlier in the system of Augustine. This argument begins with a special definition of God as infinite, perfect, and necessary.



Anselm said that God cannot be conceived in any way other than "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Even the fool knows what he means by "God" when he asserts, "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1). But if the most perfect being existed only in thought and not in reality, then it would not really be the most perfect being, for the one that existed in reality would be more perfect. Therefore, concludes Anselm, "no one who understands what God is, can conceive that God does not exist." In short, it would be self-contradictory to say, "I can think of a perfect being that doesn't exist," because existence would have to be a part of perfection. One would be saying, "I can conceive of something greater than that which nothing greater can be conceived", which is absurd.



The ontological argument has had a long and stormy history. It has appealed to some of the finest minds in Western history, usually mathematicians like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. However, it fails to persuade most people, who seem to harbor the same suspicion as Kant that "the unconditioned necessity of a judgment does not form the absolute necessity of a thing." That is, perfection may not be a true predicate and thus a proposition can be logically necessary without being true in fact.



The A Posteriori Approach. Popular mentality seems to appreciate the a posteriori approach better. The ontological argument can be made without ever appealing to sensation, but the cosmological and teleological arguments require a careful look at the world. The former focuses on the cause, while the latter stresses the design of the universe.



The Cosmological Argument. This has more than one form. The earliest occurs in Plato (Laws, Book X) and Aristotle (Metaphysics, Book VIII) and stresses the need to explain the cause of motion. Assuming that rest is natural and motion is unnatural, these thinkers arrived at God as the necessary Prime Mover of all things. Thomas Aquinas used motion as his first proof in the Summa Theologica (Q.2, Art.3). Everything that moves has to be moved by another thing. But this chain of movers cannot go on to infinity, a key assumption, because there would then be no first mover and thus no other mover. We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover, Aquinas concludes, "and this everyone understands to be God."



This argument from motion is not nearly as cogent for our scientific generation because we take motion to be natural and rest to be unnatural, as the principle of inertia states. Many philosophers insist that the notion of an infinite series of movers is not at all impossible or contradictory.



The most interesting, and persuasive, form of the cosmological argument is Aquinas's "third way," the argument from contingency. Its strength derives from the way it employs both permanence and change. Epicurus stated the metaphysical problem centuries ago: "Something obviously exists now, and something never sprang from nothing." Being, therefore, must have been without beginning. An Eternal Something must be admitted by all, theist, atheist, and agonostic.



But the physical universe could not be this Eternal Something because it is obviously contingent, mutable, subject to decay. How could a decomposing entity explain itself to all eternity? If every present contingent thing/event depends on a previous contingent thing/event and so on ad infinitum, then this does not provide an adequate explanation of anything.



Hence, for there to be anything at all contingent in the universe, there must be at least one thing that is not contingent, something that is necessary throughout all change and self-established. In this case "necessary" does not apply to a proposition but to a thing, and it means infinite, eternal, everlasting, self-caused, self-existent.



It is not enough to say that infinite time will solve the problem of contingent being. No matter how much time you have, dependent being is still dependent on something. Everything contingent within the span of infinity will, at some particular moment, not exist. But if there was a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now.



The choice is simple: one chooses either a self-existent God or a self-existent universe, and the universe is not behaving as if it is self-existent. In fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down like a clock or, better, cooling off like a giant stove. Energy is constantly being diffused or dissipated, that is, progressively distributed throughout the universe. If this process goes on for a few billion more years, and scientists have never observed a restoration of dissipated energy, then the result will be a state of thermal equilibrium, a "heat death," a random degradation of energy throughout the entire cosmos and hence the stagnation of all physical activity.



Naturalists from Lucretius to Sagan have felt that we need not postulate God as long as nature can be considered a self-explanatory entity for all eternity. But it is difficult to hold this doctrine if the second law is true and entropy is irreversible. If the cosmos is running down or cooling off, then it could not have been running and cooling forever. It must have had a beginning.



A popular retort to the cosmological argument is to ask, "If God made the universe, then who made God?" If one insists that the world had a cause, must one not also insist that God had a cause? No, because if God is a necessary being, this is established if one accepts the proof, then it is unnecessary to inquire into his origins. It would be like asking, "Who made the unmakable being?" or "Who caused the uncausable being?"



More serious is the objection that the proof is based on an uncritical acceptance of the "principle of sufficient reason," the notion that every event/effect has a cause. If this principle is denied, even if it is denied in metaphysics, the cosmological argument is defanged. Hume argued that causation is a psychological, not a metaphysical, principle, one whose origins lay in the human propensity to assume necessary connections between events when all we really see is contiguity and succession. Kant seconded Hume by arguing that causation is a category built into our minds as one of the many ways in which we order our experience. Sartre felt that the universe was "gratuitous." Bertrand Russell claimed that the question of origins was tangled in meaningless verbiage and that we must be content to declare that the universe is "just there and that's all."





One does not prove the principle of causality easily. It is one of those foundational assumptions that is made in building a world view. It can be pointed out, however, that if we jettison the idea of sufficient reason, we will destroy not only metaphysics but science as well. When one attacks causality, one attacks much of knowledge per se, for without this principle the rational connection in most of our learning falls to pieces. Surely it is not irrational to inquire into the cause of the entire universe.



The Teleological or Design Argument. This is one of the oldest and most popular and intelligible of the theistic proofs. It suggests that there is a definite analogy between the order and regularity of the cosmos and a product of human ingenuity. Voltaire put it in rather simplistic terms: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

Continued:

[Pathfinder]

Once again we are faced with a choice. Either the universe was designed or it developed all these features by chance. The cosmos is either a plan or an accident!



Most people have an innate repugnance to the notion of chance because it contradicts the way we ordinarily explain things. Chance is not an explanation but an abandonment of explanation. When a scientist explains an immediate event, he operates on the assumption that this is a regular universe where everything occurs as a result of the orderly procession of cause and effect. Yet when the naturalist comes to metaphysics, to the origin of the entire cosmos, he abandons the principle of sufficient reason and assumes that the cause of everything is an unthinkable causelessness, chance, or fate.



Suppose you were standing facing a target and you saw an arrow fired from behind you hit the bull's eye. Then you saw nine more arrows fired in rapid succession all hitting the same bull's eye. The aim is so accurate that each arrow splits the previous arrow as it hits. Now an arrow shot into the air is subject to many contrary and discordant processes, gravity, air pressure, and wind. When ten arrows reach the bull's eye, does this not rule out the possibility of mere chance? Would you not say that this was the result of an expert archer? Is this parable not analogous to our universe?



It is objected that the design argument, even if valid, does not prove a creator but only an architect, and even then only an architect intelligent enough to produce the known universe, not necessarily an omniscient being. This objection is correct. We must not try to prove more than the evidence will allow. We will not get the 100 percent Yahweh of the Bible from any evidence of natural theology. However, this universe of ours is so vast and wonderful we can safely conclude that its designer would be worthy of our worship and devotion.



Many object that the theory of evolution takes most of the wind out of the design argument. Evolution shows that the marvelous design in living organisms came about by slow adaptation to the environment, not by intelligent creation. This is a false claim. Even if admitted, evolution only introduces a longer time-frame into the question of design. Proving that watches came from a completely automated factory with no human intervention would not make us give up interest in a designer, for if we thougt a watch was wonderful, what must we think of a factory that produces watches? Would it not suggest a designer just as forcefully? Religious people have been overly frightened by the theory of evolution.



Even the great critics of natural theology, Hume and Kant, betrayed an admiration for the teleological argument. Hume granted it a certain limited validity. Kant went even further: "This proof will always deserve to be treated with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most in conformity with human reason...We have nothing to say against the reasonableness and utility of this line of argument, but wish, on the contrary, to commend and encourage it."



The Moral Argument. This is the most recent of the theistic proofs. The first major philospher to use it was Kant, who felt that the traditional proofs were defective. Kant held that the existence of God and the immortality of the soul were matters of faith, not ordinary speculative reason, which, he claimed, is limited to sensation.



Kant reasoned that the moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with perfect happiness as a logical result. But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that "there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connexion between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it." The only postulate, therefore, that will make sense of man's moral experience is "the existence of a cause of all nature, distinct from nature itself," i.e., a God who will properly reward moral endeavor in another world. In a godless universe man's deepest experience would be a cruel enigma.



In his Rumor of Angels, Peter Berger gives an interesting negative version of the moral argument, which he calls "the argument from damnation." Our apodictic moral condemnation of such immoral men as Adolf Eichmann seems to transcend tastes and mores; it seems to demand a condemnation of supernatural dimensions

. Some deeds are not only evil but monstrously evil; they appear immune to any kind of moral relativizing. In making such high-voltage moral judgments, as when we condemn slavery and genocide, we point to a transcendent realm of moral absolutes. Otherwise, all our moralizing is pointless and groundless. A "preaching relativist" is one of the most comical of self-contradictions.



Most modern thinkers who use the moral argument continue Kant's thesis that God is a necessary postulate to explain moral experience. Kant thought the moral law could be established by reason, but he called in God to guarantee the reward for virtue. Modern thinkers do not use God so much for the reward as for providing a ground for the moral law in the first place.



The moral argument starts with the simple fact of ethical experience. The pressure to do one's duty can be felt as strongly as the pressure of an empirical object. Who or what is causing this pressure? It is not enough to say that we are conditioned by society to feel those pressures. Some of the greatest moralists in history have acquired their fame precisely because they criticized the moral failings of their group, tribe, class, race, or nation. If social subjectivism is the explanation of moral motivation, then we have no right to criticize slavery or genocide or anything!



Evolutionists attack the moral argument by insisting that all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts. Men gradually work out their ethical systems by living together in social communities. But this objection is a two-edged sword: if it kills morality, it also kills reason and the scientific method. The evolutionist believes that the human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet he assumes that the intellect is trustworthy. If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?





Many people will go part way and accept moral objectivism, but they want to stop with a transcendent realm of impersonal moral absolutes. They deny that one must believe in a Person, Mind, or Lawgiver. This seems reductive. It is difficult to imagine an "impersonal mind." How could a thing make us feel duty bound to be kind, helpful, truthful, and loving? We should press on, all the way to a Person, God, the Lawgiver. Only then is the moral experience adequately explained.



The Question of Validity. How valid are all these theistic proofs? This question raises issues in a number of fields: logic, metaphysics, physics, and theory of knowledge. Some thinkers like Aquinas feel that the proofs reach the level of demonstration. Others like Hume say that we should just suspend judgment and remain skeptics. Still others like Pascal and Kant reject the traditional proofs but offer instead practical grounds or reasons for accepting God's existence. Pascal's famous wager is an appeal to pragmatism; it makes sense, in view of the eternal consequences, to bet on the existence of God.



Paul seems to demand a high view of the theistic proofs when he says that the unbelievers are "without excuse." "What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:19-20).



Paul was not necessarily affirming that the arguments are deductive, analytical, or demonstrative. If someone rejected a proposition of high probability, we could still say that he was "without excuse." The arguments, in their cumulative effect, make a very strong case for the existence of God, but they are not logically inexorable or rationally inevitable. If we define proof as probable occurrence based on empirically produced experiences and subject to the test of reasonable judgment, then we can say the arguments prove the existence of God.



If God truly exists, then we are dealing with a factual proposition, and what we really want when we ask for proof of a factual proposition is not a demonstration of its logical impossibility but a degree of evidence that will exclude reasonable doubt. Something can be so probable that it excludes reasonable doubt without being deductive or analytical or demonstrative or logically inevitable. We feel that the theistic proofs, excluding the ontological argument, fall into this category.



Natural theology, however, can never establish the existence of the biblical God. These proofs may make one a deist, but only revelation will make one a Christian. Reason operating without revelation always turns up with a deity different from Yahweh, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. One can confirm this easily by comparing Yahweh with the deities of Aristotle, Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine. A. J. HOOVER

Which argument, if any, do you think is the best argument?

[titmowse]

I am a Subgenius.

Praise Bob.

[Ace-Ace]

Originally posted by jreaka
I pray to the football gods every sunday!

Me tool...it's not working so far (Woohoo Bengals...)

[G Sharp]

Originally posted by Pathfinder

Kant reasoned that the moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with perfect happiness as a logical result. But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that "there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connexion between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it." The only postulate, therefore, that will make sense of man's moral experience is "the existence of a cause of all nature, distinct from nature itself," i.e., a God who will properly reward moral endeavor in another world. In a godless universe man's deepest experience would be a cruel enigma.



. . . . .


Most modern thinkers who use the moral argument continue Kant's thesis that God is a necessary postulate to explain moral experience. Kant thought the moral law could be established by reason, but he called in God to guarantee the reward for virtue. Modern thinkers do not use God so much for the reward as for providing a ground for the moral law in the first place.

This seems to hit closest to home. People make judgments every day--hot/cold, left/right, etc. Most of these decisions are based on empirical decision making processes [on experience]. However, there are some decisions that require moral/ethical guidelines. The elaborations of moral cause differ from culture to culture but it is always phrased in the form of the supernatural--the spiritual. The source[s] of moral guidance is summarized as God.

This is not bulletproof reasoning though. Skeptical scientists may argue, in line with Chomsky's theory of linguistic genesis, that the human trait of "morality" is a byproduct of evolutionary adaptations that focused on self-preservation. There is recent research that suggests that behaviors we humans normally label "altruistic" or "self-sacrifice" or "compassion" are just differing ways organisms employ to ensure the survival of their genetic lines. Along the same lines it can be argued that the "hard wired morality" people may be born with is a psychological by product of psychological adaptations needed to insure survival. Indeed, if people did not have this hard wired moral compass, the strongest will kill all others and genetic diversity [a key component to species' evolutionary viability] suffers. At the most basic, morality can be summed up in self-serving terms--"Do unto others what you want them to do unto you" can easily be interpreted as a clever insurance policy; I forego harming you to incentivize you from harming me.

There's definitely 2 sides to every coin but it all boils down to belief.

[Pathfinder]

Well we have one for the moral argument.

Does anyone else have an opinion on the best argument?