Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

Karpel Tunnel
I don't see why we must assume that it is a theist who has convinced us that God exists....
There are arguments that suggest that God as prime mover provides some explanatory power. If I were convinced by someone using that argument, I would say "Okay, I accept there is a prime mover" and then ask "now what?"

Why should we assume that only theism would get us a world in which people care about morality, or have practices or goals? Why should we assume that only theism would get us a world in which people care about being better people?

[Sculptor1]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God.

All belief is irrational.
Belief is a thing taken as true with inadequate evidence for it to be known.
Therefore nothing follows from belief.

[Karpel Tunnel]

@Karpel Tunnel
I don't see why we must assume that it is a theist who has convinced us that God exists....

I refer you to the title of the thread....again.

There are arguments that suggest that God as prime mover provides some explanatory power. If I were convinced by someone using that argument, I would say "Okay, I accept there is a prime mover" and then ask "now what?"

Great. Then that is what the thread is about. It is about prime mover versions of God and what this might imply once you start to believe in there behing or having been one. Now I know that.

Why should we assume that only theism would get us a world in which people care about morality, or have practices or goals?

I don't assume that. And never asserted it. If, however, AS I WROTE, there was deity like the ones in the various most commonly believed in theisms, then one would likely want to know the values of this diety. I never said there were no values without a deity.

Why should we assume that only theism would get us a world in which people care about being better people?

I have no idea why your group (re: 'we') should make that assumption. I don't make it myself.

I tried to answer the OP. You still haven't had the minimal respect to actually respond to my answer which is relevent in those cases where someone convinces you from one of the major religions that God exists. I gave an answer based on that scenario which would be one of the scenarios that fits the OP with its title

Let's say you convince us God exists....

Most of the possible 'yous' would be theists. Now I see you only want answers from deists or the like or about what would happen if deists or the like convinced you. Or pantheists. Note that they are a kind of theist - If not having, at least not usually, a deity in the usual sense - and it seemed like a variety of Gods might be what you would be convinced of.

And you still haven't responded to what I wrote even though it fits the request in the OP. Now I know it wasn't what you were looking for.

If the question is, hey what if you deists convince me there is a God, what's next? I don't think there is any answer to that. It has no effects, as I described in the previous post. Since we lack a deity that might affect morals, goals, etc. in deism, then I don't think believing in the deist god leads to any necessary next steps, though it certainly might affect people in different ways, I think these are going to be much more individual and less patterned than when you have a deity.

If it is pantheism you are convinced to believe in, it depends a lot on which one, and what the nature of the whole shebangs consciousness is. Some pantheisms end up with something like a deity. Some do not and are more like panpsychism. So there it depends.

Anyway, I feel a bit like your lack of clarity wasted my time, especially since it continued even after I pointed it out. And here in the last post through poor reading you made assumptions about my beliefs around morals necessarily being tied to deities, when my point was only that in deism knowing there is a God does not entail correct moralities or what one should do with one's time, or what a religious practice should be like. Whereas if there is a deity, and one is convinced by a theist, then there generally seems to be attendant morals, best practices, reasons to get closer to God and so on.

Atheists and pantheists and deists can certainly have morals and goals. Generally the first and the third don't get them due to their being atheists or deists. And pantheists are less likely than other theists to have a specific set of values and goals. Though pantheists tend to share some values.

Anyway, I'll avoid the thread from here on out. It's been less than pleasant.

[Felix]

Anonymous66, In your first post you said: "I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind."

That alone is a possible spring-board for exploration. Your "next step" would be to find out if there are means to verify the validity of that belief, i.e., are there methods or practices, such as meditation, that can help you find out?

Along these lines, an Indian swami named Swami Rama wrote a treatise he entitled "Enlightenment without God."

[GaryLouisSmith]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

If you not only believe that but you tell other people that you do, then many things will follow. First, in most circles, but not all, you will be quietly considered to be less than a good academic intellectual. You are close to being wishy washy and soft. On you way to believing in the paranormal, the bête noir of the intelligentsia. The soundness of your arguments will not save you. These things are signs of mental weakness. So buck up. If you can gather the strength to go against the flow and not worry about your reputation or whether you have a job, then go for it. You may learn to love yourself in spite of your social status.

[Sy Borg]

There seem to be two ways of "finding God".

One is social and is basically a game that has nothing to do with spirituality, aside from helping those of one's "tribe".

Alternatively, finding God via mystical experience points the way to the next step, because once you have a mystical experience you will never forget it and what it tells you about the potential joy that underpins this seeming vale of tears. When one has such an experience, it may or may nor be interpreted as God, but it is always treasured.

I don't know of anyone finding God via reason. It always seems to be an attempt to prove what one would prefer to be true. If one is absolutely straight with oneself, the only possible response is to acknowledge that there is an awful lot about reality that does not make sense and to accept it rather than make over certain suppositions. Many people present their guesses as indisputable facts.

There's a lot we don't know and it seems a tad far-fetched that only the simple people of the Middle East 2,000 years ago worked out the puzzle of reality. Why not China 1,500 years ago or Africa 6,000 years ago or Indonesia 8,000 years ago? Because Constantine saw what was believed to be a comet and when he afterwards won his battle he took it as a sign from God and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is the only reason why.

I find that the Chinese Tao concept and the ideas of Buddhism far more mature and considered than the Abrahamic ideas, which rely on incredibly generous metaphorical interpretations to make sense - certainly more generous interpretations than creationists will ever apply to scientific findings.


PS. why is there something rather than nothing? Because there apparently has always been something. It's been found that there is no such thing as a true vacuum - every tiny part of reality is roiling with energy. The energy does not appear and disappear but changes form.

[GaryLouisSmith]

PS. why is there something rather than nothing? Because there apparently has always been something. It's been found that there is no such thing as a true vacuum - every tiny part of reality is roiling with energy. The energy does not appear and disappear but changes form.

The problem that physicists are having nowadays with the vacuum energy is that theoretically there is way too much of it. As one moves to smaller and smaller volumes of empty space the amount of energy there approaches infinity. Then since energy equals mass, it should all instantly collapse into a black hole. This is the problem of the Cosmological Constant. They have been looking mightily for a solution to this immense problem at CERN but so far they have found nothing. We may be at the end of physics.

[Sy Borg]

We may be at the end of physics.

It certainly is a teaser. We may be on the threshold of new discoveries in physics, even new paradigms.

Logically (if that can be applied to physics anymore) it would seem that some of the energy out there is not adding but cancelling out other energy.

It may also be that all that all of reality already is actually a humongous black hole-like object, with the BB the bounce of energies from the "singularity". Might God be an ultramassive black hole? Capable of mass creation. Check. Huge. Check. Incredibly powerful. Check. Not subject to normal time as we are. Check. Very different in nature to Earthly things. Check.

[GaryLouisSmith]

We may be at the end of physics.

It certainly is a teaser. We may be on the threshold of new discoveries in physics, even new paradigms.

Logically (if that can be applied to physics anymore) it would seem that some of the energy out there is not adding but cancelling out other energy.

It may also be that all that all of reality already is actually a humongous black hole-like object, with the BB the bounce of energies from the "singularity". Might God be an ultramassive black hole? Capable of mass creation. Check. Huge. Check. Incredibly powerful. Check. Not subject to normal time as we are. Check. Very different in nature to Earthly things. Check.

I think you are standing on the edge of poetry. That's not a bad place to be standing. We are leaving the modern, rationalistic age and this new postmodern, post-postmodern time is very different. I think literature is where the gods will return.

[Sculptor1]

I think literature is where the gods will return.

Thankfully that is not the case, else I'd have to start recommending the burning of books

[Felix]

"The problem that physicists are having nowadays with the vacuum energy is that theoretically there is way too much of it."

Well then, at least it will be clean when we're done with it - thanks to all that vacuum energy.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think literature is where the gods will return.

Thankfully that is not the case, else I'd have to start recommending the burning of books

You should start burning books NOW!

[GaryLouisSmith]

"The problem that physicists are having nowadays with the vacuum energy is that theoretically there is way too much of it."

Well then, at least it will be clean when we're done with it - thanks to all that vacuum energy.

We won't be done with it. It will be done with us. In a flash!

[Sculptor1]

Thankfully that is not the case, else I'd have to start recommending the burning of books

You should start burning books NOW!

No need. God is still dead.

[GaryLouisSmith]

You should start burning books NOW!

No need. God is still dead.

The God you are talking about is the rationalist’s God of Reason. Yes, that God is dead. The gods I am speaking of have slowly been infecting literature ever since Baudelaire and The Flowers of Evil all the way up to the American Beat Poets, the gods of Decadence. These are the gods of madness, just as they were at the beginning of man’s coming to awareness. These of the gods of the demi-monde.