A: We need God? Why? — Art48

The same reason we need art – "in order not to die of the truth." ~F.N.

A: We need God? Why?

B: To give us hope for a better life. Here, we suffer pain and disease and war.

A selfish use of God. You only want him whenever the circumstances turn bad. Just accept our daily lives are unpleasant.

Without God, what would you tell a mother who just lost her child?

My condolences as the average educated person should do.

I was in my room, minding my own business, buggering the local barista. The door burst asunder.

"Thou shalt not sodomize!" The authorities cried. "You're under arrest."

"But God told me it was ok bugger the barista."

"Blasphemy!" the police priest shouted. "You've been deluded by Satan."

"But what does God say about North Carolina's hog farm pollution calamity?"

"Shut your trap! Sodomizer! Grace comes to the deserving."
_______

God gets to trounce secular rule because he is associated with ultimate values by his/her/its cult members. In current times this is very dangerous.

Many use God as an excuse to get what they want (power/wealth). Others are persuaded to follow by a senseless appeal to faith.

To give us hope for a better life. Here, we suffer pain and disease and war. We lose loved ones. Without God, what would you tell a mother who just lost her child? And for justice. — Art48

This is the old, traditional explanation atheists have used to explain the purpose of god. God as white lie. So?

Humans need god like a fish needs a bicycle.

Like a fish needs another set of gills :wink:

Edited to make sense.

It made perfect sense the original way.

I guess it made sense but not in the way I intended. Lol

:up:

Jesus gets girls and demonstrates high-value attractive behavior, but I wouldn't expect philosophers to understand this. Keep it up with the Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. Angry virgins are always right.

:-)

The same reason we need art – "in order not to die of the truth." ~F.N. — 180 Proof

:fire:

@Bartricks claims that, evolutionarily speaking, there needn't be any real reasons for beliefs though we think/feel there are.

We are survival machines, not truth machines notwithstanding the fact that, in a way, the truth shall set you free.

This is the old, traditional explanation atheists have used to explain the purpose of god. God as white lie. So? — Tom Storm

Characterizing an argument to dismiss it is not the same as addressing it, especially since there are 2000-year-old, traditional explanations still being accepted and discussed today.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need for that hypothesis) — Pierre-Simon Laplace

Do you think fish would invent and make bicycles if they could? Like, most of them would get one?

We are survival machines, not truth machines ... — Agent Smith

Thus, the atavistic prevalence of group / wishful / magical thinking (i.e. faith) over defeasible thinking (i.e. truth-seeking); the cognitive priority of just-so stories over sound inferences.

:smirk: :up:

Characterizing an argument to dismiss it is not the same as addressing it, especially since there are 2000-year-old, traditional explanations still being accepted and discussed today. — Art48

Tradition being 'accepted and discussed' over time means very little. Hinduism is 4000 years old and has 900 million followers. It is accepted and discussed, but is it true? Is it more true than Christianity? Or is it the case that religions, like most social groups, offer people a sense of belonging and purpose and something to do on weekends? Having met quite a few atheists who used to be fundamentalist Christians - the common observation is that very often what keeps people from leaving religion is the social contact, belonging and community. God/s may not play as big a role as people think.

I’m just a guy taking things to their logical conclusion — Art48

Remind me what the conclusion is again, if you don't mind.

Thus, the atavistic prevalence of group / wishful / magical thinking (i.e. faith) over defeasible thinking (i.e. truth-seeking); the cognitive priority of just-so stories over sound inferences. — 180 Proof

I see. :up:

Remind me what the conclusion is again, if you don't mind. — praxis

A: I was getting to my point. “ . . . the Jews invented Yahweh; the later Roman Empire invented Jesus?” That seems like an obvious corollary to what you’ve been saying. — Art48

Subsequent to this you say:

The genuine God (if such exists) allows almost all humans who ever lived to be born into a society that has false gods. — Art48

And this suggests that one or more faith’s are not invented but genuine.

Need unpacked:

1. Logical necessity: Is there anything about this universe that requires the existence of God for an explanation?

2. Emotional necessity: Safety blanket/imaginary friend, someone who'll always be there no matter what!

Personally, I'm committed to moral realism. And this led me to theism, or the belief that God exists to explain moral realism. Of course, there are those who become moral anti-realists because they realize that moral realism may require theistic belief, and theism is "too high of a price" to pay for moral realism. The moral arguments for the existence of God are the most compelling to me.

Personally, I'm committed to moral realism. And this led me to theism, or the belief that God exists to explain moral realism. Of course, there are those who become moral anti-realists because they realize that moral realism may require theistic belief, and theism is "too high of a price" to pay for moral realism. The moral arguments for the existence of God are the most compelling to me. — Paulm12

Why do you need God in order to act morally?

I don't need God to act "morally" in the sense that I think plenty of people who don't believe in God act morally. But personally, I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why objective moral values exist and that our faculties (rational and emotional) correspond to the existence of these values. It may be strange to say but JL Mackie (and his argument from queerness) actually pushed me towards theism as an explanation to why our moral intuitions could track true or false statements.

I don't need God to act "morally" in the sense that I think plenty of people who don't believe in God act morally. But personally, I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why objective moral values exist and that our faculties (rational and emotional) correspond to the existence of these values. It may be strange to say but JL Mackie (and his argument from queerness) actually pushed me towards theism as an explanation to why our moral intuitions could track true or false statements. — Paulm12

What morality are you referring to that depends on God? Does one need God to not kill, steal, or lie?
Isn't not harming others pretty straightforward and practical?

I agree that avoiding harming others is indeed straightforward and practical, and I think it serves as a good guide for our own behavior. The issue I see is when trying to convince other people that they should agree with us and not harm other people. Plenty of people are sexist, racist, etc, and while they realize their actions cause harm to another group of people, they simply do not care (in the same way I realize I don't care that my eating of a steak has likely harmed a cow).

When I say "harming humans is wrong," I want this statement to express an ethical statement that is "true" in the sense that it goes beyond my personal preferences for what "right" and "wrong" is and refers to an objective fact about the universe. If emotivism is true and all ethical statements are just expressions of feeling or attitude, rather than assertions or reports of anything, then convincing people of my meta-ethical viewpoint amounts to manipulation. If emotivism is true, I cannot give people good reasons for following what I deem ethical behavior because, despite how I may feel, the underlying justification for my ethical propositions does not exist. Therefore, trying to change peoples' ethical viewpoint on what is "right" or "wrong," or what forms of harm I think they should care about, amounts to treating them as means to my own personal ends.

In other words, say someone's actions harm a group of people, I show them how their actions cause harm, and they respond with "why should I care?" Under emotivism, I cannot give them good reasons for why they should care. Me saying they should do anything is a teleological claim that I must either be willing to justify, or admit that I am lying to them and trying to manipulate their behavior. If moral facts exist (i.e. harming other humans is objectively wrong and this is a fact of the universe), then I can give them a good reason for why they should care-they are wrong or mistaken about how they should behave or treat other people. In other words, with moral realism, we can talk about when someone's moral sense is "faulty" in the same way we may argue someone's vision or hearing is faulty when not functioning "properly." But of course, we need to define and justify what "properly" is and means for humans.

In other words, say someone's actions harm a group of people, I show them how their actions cause harm, and they respond with "why should I care?" — Paulm12

That is how a sociopath answers.
Morals are norms, shared customs.

For my 2 shekels ...

I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why [ ... ] — Paulm12

Is there anything about this universe that requires the existence of God for an explanation? — Agent Smith

Of course not. "God" is the ultimate "mystery" (according to Abrahamic (& Vedic) traditions) and a "mystery" does not explain anything. "Mystery created it", "Mystery commands it" – beg cosmological and ethical questions, respectively, and therefore cannot answer them.

Of course not. "God" is the ultimate "mystery" (according to Abrahamic (& Vedic) traditions) and a "mystery" does not explain anything. "Mystery created it", "Mystery commands it" – beg cosmological and ethical questions, respectively, and therefore cannot answer them. — 180 Proof

:up:

When you put it that way, it becomes crystal clear. Attempting to solve a mystery (the universe and all in it, imcluding ourselves) with another mystery (God/s) is just plain stupid! Why compound our woes so foolishly?!

Perhaps it's part of the territory of unknowns - we can only imagine/speculate and while we get points for creativity, truth & reason take a hit.