Doe it really matter if God exists or not...?

[o_O.Q]

JWeinCom said:

o_O.Q said:

 

"None of those have definitive answers"

 

lol really? so you don't think everyone would agree that its better to be healthy as opposed to unhealthy?

 

"And none of them are moral questions."

 

i didn't say they were, i used them as examples that some forms of behavior are objectively better than others, isn't that obvious?

 

"Agreeing on some values does not make for objective morality."

 

that's not the case... that's about as close as we can get to objective morality - in that we look at what patterns of behavior are most beneficial for individuals and communities across a civilisations and across a large time period and make conclusions based on those observations

that's the same method we use to produce technology and make conclusions on the nature of reality of our world - the scientific method

but i suppose you first first have to acknowledge that objective reality is a thing... which you seem to be denying right now

 

"the evidence is history

You need to be more specific"

that its been the primary method man has used and still uses to communicate these values and that's a fact

"despite this we still utilise the scientific method... we don't allow the fact that we are flawed and limited beings stop us from investigating things and reaching 

That has nothing to do with what I said"

"Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers, I fail to see how you can have objective morality, with or without god or religion.  "

 

so again your point is apparently that there is no such thing as objective reality... if you are going down that road then what's the point having a conversation to begin with

 

"and that is an inherent flaw in all communication... nothing man creates is perfect, there are always flaws no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do things

So then belief in god does not enable objective morality.  Cool beans.  Guess it's settled."

no what i said there is that the means of communication we use are flawed... that's a seperate issue from the information we are trying to convey being incorrect... you understand the difference?

if i shout from a mile away that 2+2 = 4 but you hear me say 2+2= 7 what is the problem here? the means of communication? or the message?

lol really? so you don't think everyone would agree that its better to be healthy as opposed to unhealthy?

You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit.
  
And, being overweight is definitely advantageous in certain situations.  If I was in a place or time where food was scarce, I would probably want to be overweight. 

that's not the case... that's about as close as we can get to objective morality - in that we look at what patterns of behavior are most beneficial for individuals and communities across a civilisations and across a large time period and make conclusions based on those observations

that's the same method we use to produce technology and make conclusions on the nature of reality of our world - the scientific method

but i suppose you first first have to acknowledge that objective reality is a thing... which you seem to be denying right now

What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god.

I don't know when I denied objective reality.  

that its been the primary method man has used and still uses to communicate these values and that's a fact

You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  

no what i said there is that the means of communication we use are flawed... that's a seperate issue from the information we are trying to convey being incorrect... you understand the difference?

if i shout from a mile away that 2+2 = 4 but you hear me say 2+2= 7 what is the problem here? the means of communication? or the message?

It doesn't matter.  

You argued that god, as a concept, is necessary for objective morality, which can be transmitted through religious stories.  If we can not read the stories and reliably draw the same moral conclusions, then we do not have objective morality. 

Language is the means of communication we have.  If language is insufficient to transmit objective moral values, then we can't have objective morality until we find some better way to communicate  Whether or not we have god.

 

"You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit."

 

so... yeah... you've contradicted your earlier claim that the notion that some behaviors are different from others is merely opinion... the silly word play here doesn't change my point

 

"What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god."

 

its the closest thing to objectivity man can achieve so yes for all intents and purposes it is objective, otherwise you might as well claim there's no objective reality and that using the scientific method is a waste of time

 

with regards to requiring god, i've said many times in this thread that in this context i'm reffering to god as values that trancend the subjective scope of man and we need that because otherwise we have no foundation to work with and everything becomes subjective as you have struggled with in replies to me

 

if you want to throw it all away and claim that everything is subjective, then you might as well start questioning if you actually even exist... but most people realise that they have to simplify things to some extent and use some basic premises as a foundation such as "i exist" "i can interact with the world" etc etc etc

 

"I don't know when I denied objective reality."

 

you said that the notion that some behaviors are better than others for people is just opinion... how is that not denying objective reality?

 

"You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  "

 

in this context they are one and the same, if you have a differing understanding of history then please share... maybe you'll be able to rewrite the history books

 

"You argued that god, as a concept, is necessary for objective morality, which can be transmitted through religious stories.  If we can not read the stories and reliably draw the same moral conclusions, then we do not have objective morality. "

 

that's true but does not mean that its not a system that can and has been used successfully... all successful civilisations that we know of have used this process - Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

 

as i said before as is the case with all manmade systems it degenerates with time but that does not mean that the core values are incorrect as you yourself have acknowledged above when you agreed that being fit is better than being unfit