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

[o_O.Q]

JWeinCom said:

o_O.Q said:

 

seems like you are putting words into the mouth of the thread maker here to me... he didn't put god specifically as a being in thread title

If we're talking about existence, the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists.  As he used the capital G to imply a name, the most reasonable interpretation is that he's talking about something personal.  We would call that a being.  He can correct me if he wishes.  I don't know why he would be asking if it matters whether or not a metaphor exists.  That would be silly.

i gave a very clear example of objectivity in that concepts such as conflict are a constant in the human experience and must as a result be dealt with... that is an objective goal for mankind

I'd hesitate to even call that an objective goal.  That might technically correct, but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system.

If you wanted to talk about the methods which we'd use to resolve conflicts...

that's actually not true... generally the best solution is to produce a consensus... you come to a consensus when you have values to follow... which is the very purpose of the stories we are reffering to

I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts.  Ask the Midianites how that concensus building worked out for them.

But anyway, the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling.

otherwise if everything is rendered down to whatever subjective aims all of us have absolutely, then it is impossible to have a society and there can be nothing but conflict

No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother.  We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another.  And when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. 

And doesn't that sound exactly like the world we live in?

 

weed is illegal in america right? do you know of anyone who doesn't currently smoke or hasn't smoked weed?

do you always drive below the speed limit? i know i don't for sure

Not sure what the point is. I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  

well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine

That's the kind of statement you need evidence for.

 

"the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists."

 

so if i understand correctly you are saying that a supernatural concept is reffering to something physical?

 

" but it's kind of pointless.  It's a necessity.  You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals.  And it's definitely not a moral system."

 

you don't think one of the primary goals if not the primary goal of morality is the resolution of conflict?... well i don't know what to say to that

 

"I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts."

 

which i didn't say, the stories offer lessons for a wide variety of issues that affect the invididual and the society and they are largely misinterpreted sometimes with the foolish intention of dismissing them as nonsense

 

" the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion.  If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling."

 

do wars occur if there is a consensus between the two groups?

 

"No.  That doesn't follow.  Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother."

 

which is inevtiable since people are different right?

 

"We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another."

 

which would happen if everyone was exactly the same and there was no individuality right? but is that true of people or not?

 

"nd when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force. "

 

and how are you going to force everyone to behave?

 

"I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality.  Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.  "

 

the point i was making is that we don't take our values primarily from the law

 

"That's the kind of statement you need evidence for."

 

well as i've said the history of the past great civilisations and their adherence to certain principles is evidence, if you want to dismiss that then that's ok